TITLE V – CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM
In support of his
AN OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
ABELLA: ARUTA to CACAO case
 R.A. 9165 otherwise known
as “The Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002”
PEOPLE vs ARUTA
FACTS:  Accused-appellants’ defense of “frame-
Lt. Abello assembled a team after was
tipped off by his informant that a certain
“Aling Rosa” carries a large volume of
marijuana. Then after, upon inspection,
the bag was found to contain dried
marijuana leaves and the accused
violated the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972.
ISSUE:
WON the warrantless search resulting to
the arrest of accused-appellant violated
the latter’s constitutional rights.
HELD:
Yes. The accused cannot be said to be
committing a crime.  Neither was she
about to commit one nor had she just
committed a crime. there was no legal
basis for the NARCOM agents to effect a
warrantless search of accused-
appellant’s bag, there being no probable
cause and the accused-appellant not
having been lawfully arrested.  HELD:
PEOPLE vs ANGELES
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
PEOPLE v. DIOLO BARITA
FACTS:
Barita was charged with selling and
delivering more or less 2,800 grams of
dried marijuana.
appeal, BARITA denies any participation
in the alleged sale of marijuana. He
claims that no buy-bust operation and
that he was frame-up.
ISSUE:
WON the accused contention of being
framed up is correct.
HELD:
up” does not convince the court for his
innocence. There is no evidence which
difficult to prove and is a common and
standard line of defense in most
prosecutions arising from violations of
the Dangerous Drugs Act.  The burden
of proof always lies to the accussed.
PEOPLE v. CHEN TIZ CHANG
FACTS:
Chen Tiz Chang and Chen Jung San,
challenged the decision of RTC in
finding them guilty of illegal
possession and sale of shabu and
sentencing each of them to two counts
of reclusion perpetua.                    
ISSUE:
WON the accused is guilty.
YES. In a prosecution for illegal
possession of dangerous drugs, it must
be shown that
(1) the accused is in possession of an
item or an object identified to be a
prohibited or a regulated drug,
(2) such possession is not authorized by
law and
(3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the said drug.
Here, the prosecution witnesses were
able to establish these elements along
with their personal knowledge and
evidences.
PEOPLE vs ONG
FACTS:
Upon a tip, that a certain William Ong is
conducting illicit drug activities. As per
order of Chief Inspector Ferro, a team of
eight decided to conduct a buy-bust
operation. Thereafter, the accused was
arrested. However, he contended that
the arraignment was improper.
ISSUE:
WON the arraignment is incorrect and
should be acquitted?
HELD:
YES. the prosecution evidence about the
buy-bust operation is incomplete. The
witness’ confidential information who
had sole knowledge of how the alleged
illegal sale of was given by SPO1
Gonzales who had no personal
knowledge of the same and not part of
the buy-bust operation.
PEOPLE VS ZERVOUKALOS
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
PEOPLE vs ADAM
FACTS:
A buy-bust operation was conducted
after a tip of an infrmant, and the
accused was caught selling shabu and
was arrested for violating R.A 9165. The
accused contended that the shabu was
implanted and he was framed up.
ISSUE:
WON the accused should be acquitted?
HELD:
NO. For a successful prosecution of an
offense of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the following essential elements
must be proven:
(1) that the transaction or sale took
place;
(2) that the corpus delicti or the illicit
drug was presented as evidence; and (3)
that the buyer and seller were identified.
All of the elements were present.
PEOPLE vs YANG
FACTS:
Upon an eyewitness positively pointed
the accused as the suspect in the "buy-
bust" operation, Yang was immediately
arrested for selling and distributing
drugs. Accused contended after
arraignment that his arrest was invalid,
and that he must be acquitted.
ISSUE:
WON the accused is correct.
HELD:
NO. The proper time for questioning the
validity of his arrest should have been
before arraignment. It is too late for
appellant to complain about the
warrantless arrest after a valid
information had been filed, the accused
arraigned, trial commenced and
completed, and a judgment of conviction
rendered.
-----------------------------------------------
 R.A. No. 9165 (Cases of
acquittal: based on non-
compliance with the chain
of custody)
PEOPLE vs CACAO
FACTS:
PO2 Mangapit frisked the accused and
recovered from him one plastic sachet
containing shabu. The Philippine
National Police (PNP) laboratory
conducted an examination on the
specimen recovered from appellant and
his companion which tested positive for
shabu. However, Cacao contends that
the prosecution is improper.
ISSUE:
WON the prosecution failed to
satisfactorily establish that the item
presented in court was the same item
confiscated from Cacao.
HELD:
YES. There is no evidence to prove that
what was turned over to the evidence
custodian and later presented in court
was the same substance recovered from
petitioner. The failure to establish the
chain of custody is fatal to the
prosecution’s case.
AMPARADO: KAMAD to
OBMIRANIS CASE
People vs. Kamad
G.R. No. 174198               January 19,
2010
Facts:
The accused, not being lawfully
authorized to possess or otherwise use
any dangerous drug and without the
corresponding license or prescription,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and feloniously give away, distribute and
sell to a customer for P300.00 pesos one
(1) small heat sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing crystalline substance
(shabu) weighing 0.20 gram, which
when examined were found positive for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu), a dangerous drug, in violation
of the above-cited law.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of Section 5, Article II of RA
9165 for the illegal sale of 0.20 gram of
shabu.
Ruling:
No. The court held that the
discrepancy in the prosecution evidence
on the identity of the seized and
examined shabu and that formally
offered in court cannot but lead to
serious doubts regarding the origins of
the shabu presented in court. This
discrepancy and the gap in the chain of
custody immediately affect proof of the
corpus delicti without which the accused
must be acquitted.
From the constitutional law point
of view, the prosecution’s failure to
establish with moral certainty all the
elements of the crime and to identify the
accused as the perpetrator signify that it
failed to overturn the constitutional
presumption of innocence that every
accused enjoys in a criminal
prosecution. When this happens, as in
this case, the courts need not even
consider the case for the defense in
deciding the case; a ruling for acquittal
must forthwith issue.
People vs. Frondozo
G.R. No. 177164               June 30, 2009
Facts:
That on or about the 27th day of
March, 2003 in Caloocan City, the
accused without authority of law, did
then and there willfully, unlawfully and
feloniously sell and deliver to PO1
ABNER BUTAY who posed, as buyer of
METHAMPHETAMINE
HYDROCHLORIDE (SHABU) weighing
0.02 gram drug, without the
corresponding license or prescription
therefore, knowing the same to be such.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of RA 9165.
Ruling:
No. Jurisprudence clearly sets the
essential elements to be established in
the prosecution for illegal sale of
dangerous drugs, viz.: (1) the
transaction or sale took place, (2)
the corpus delicti or the illicit drug was
presented as evidence, and (3) the buyer
and seller were identified. In this case,
the arresting officers failed to strictly
comply with the procedures for the
custody and disposition of confiscated
dangerous drugs as prescribed by Rep.
Act No. 9165. The arresting officers did
not mark the shabu immediately after
they arrested Frondozo.
 Finally, the presumption of
regularity in the performance of official
duty relied upon by the lower courts
cannot by itself overcome the
presumption of innocence nor constitute
proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
As a rule, the testimony of police officers
who apprehended Frondozo is accorded
full faith and credit because of the
presumption that they have performed
their duties regularly. However, when
the performance of their duties is
tainted with irregularities, such
presumption is effectively destroyed.
The corpus delicti in this case does not
exist.
People vs. Partoza
G.R. No. 182418               May 8, 2009
Facts:
That on or about the 2nd day of
November 2002, in the Municipality of
San Mateo, Province of Rizal, the
accused, not being authorized by law,
did then and there willfully, unlawfully
and knowingly have in his possession,
direct custody and control one (1) heat-
sealed transparent plastic sachet of
white crystalline substance weighing
0.04 gram, which substance, after
confirmatory test, was found positive to
the test of Methamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous, popularly
known as "shabu" a dangerous drug, in
violation of the above-cited law.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of RA 9165.
Ruling:
No. The evidence of the
prosecution did not reveal the identity of
the person who had the custody and
safekeeping of the drugs after its
examination and pending presentation
in court. The failure of the prosecution
to establish the chain of custody is fatal
to its cause. All told, the identity of the
corpus delicti in this case was not
proven beyond reasonable doubt.
The courts below heavily relied
on the testimony of PO3 Tougan and in
the same breadth, banked on the
presumption of regularity. In People v.
Garcia, we said that the presumption
only arises in the absence of contrary
details in the case that raise doubt on
the regularity in the performance of
official duties. Where, as in the present
case, the police officers failed to comply
with the standard procedures prescribed
by law, there is no occasion to apply the
presumption.
People vs. Robles
G.R. No. 177220               April 24, 2009
Facts:
That on or about the 5th day of
July 2002, in the City of Parañaque, the
accused give away, distribute and sell to
a customer for P100.00 pesos one (1)
small heat sealed transparent plastic
sachet containing crystalline substances
(shabu), weighing 0.09 gram, which
when examined were found positive for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu) and that on or about the 5th day
of July 2002, the accused have in his
possession and under his control and
custody one (1) heat sealed transparent
plastic sachet containing white
crystalline substance which when
examined was found to be positive for
Methylamphetamine Hydrochloride
(shabu), weighing 0.16 gram,.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of RA 9165.
Ruling:
No. The Court finds that the
prosecution failed to clearly establish
the chain of custody of the seized plastic
sachet containing shabu subject of the
alleged sale. PO2 Besoña and PO3
Malicse did not adequately
explain how the corpus delicti
transferred hands from the time it was
supposedly confiscated from appellant
to the time it was presented in court as
evidence.
Additionally, the Court notes
further that nothing on record shows
compliance by the buy-bust team with
the procedural requirements of Section
21, paragraph 1 of Article II of R.A. No.
9165 with respect to custody and
disposition of confiscated drugs. The
failure of the police to comply with the
procedure in the custody of seized drugs
raises doubt as to their origins, and
negates the operation of the
presumption of regularity accorded to
police officers.
Sales vs. People
G.R. No. 182296               April 7, 2009
Facts:
That on or about the 5th day of
November, 2002 in Quezon City,
Philippines, the said accused, not being
authorized by law to sell, dispense,
deliver, transport or distribute any
dangerous drug, did then and there
willfully and unlawfully sell, dispense,
deliver, transport, distribute or act as
broker in the said transaction, zero point
one four (0.14) gram of white crystalline
substance containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of RA 9165.
Ruling:
No.
It is essential that the prohibited
drug confiscated or recovered from the
suspect is the very same
substance offered in court as exhibit;
and that the identity of said drug be
established with the same unwavering
exactitude as that requisite to make a
finding of guilt.
The Court finds that neither was
physical inventory nor photograph of
the sachet and buy-bust money taken in
the presence of petitioner, or her
representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the
Department of Justice, as required by
law, was taken. No justification
whatsoever was proffered by the
apprehending team for its failure to
observe the legal safeguards.
Cariño vs. People
G.R. No. 178757               March 13, 2009
Facts:
Petitioners Carino and Andes
were apprehended on two separate but
related incidents on 20 June 2003 at the
corner of G. Araneta and E. Rodriguez
Avenues in Quezon City. The
apprehending officers were allegedly
members of the Central Police District
(CPD)-Galas Police Station 11 and were
part of the eight-man team5 that was
dispatched by the police district
authorities to conduct the "Oplan Sita"—
an operation which had for its object the
suppression of rampant robbery in the
vicinity. It was in the course of this
operation that both petitioners were
arrested without a warrant for allegedly
having in their possession plastic
sachets containing shabu.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of RA 9165.
Ruling:
No. The Court grants the petition.
All told, in view of the deviation
of the apprehending officers from the
mandated conduct of taking post-seizure
custody of the dangerous drug in this
case, there is no way to presume that the
members thereof had performed their
duties regularly. And even assuming that
we can confidently rely on the credibility
of the prosecution witnesses in this case,
the evidence would still fall short of
satisfying the quantum of evidence
required to arrive at a finding of guilt
beyond reasonable doubt because the
evidence chain failed to conclusively
connect petitioners with the seized
drugs in a way that would establish that
the specimens are one and the same as
that seized in the first place and offered
in court as evidence.
People vs. Garcia
G.R. No. 173480               February 25,
2009
Facts:
That on or about the 27th day of
February 2003, in the Municipality of
Navotas, Metro Manila, the accused,
being a private person, and without
authority of law, did then and there,
willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously sell
and deliver for consideration in the
amount of ₱200.00 to poseur-buyer one
(1) piece of printed paper with markings
‘RGR-1’ containing the following: one (1)
small brick of dried suspected Marijuana
fruiting tops with a net weight 11.02
gram[s] and Thirteen (13) small white
paper[s] with markings ‘RGR-RPI’
through ‘RGR-RP13,’ respectively, which
substance, when subjected to chemistry
examination gave positive result for
Marijuana, a dangerous drug.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of RA 9165.
Ruling:
No. After due consideration, the court
resolve to ACQUIT Ruiz, as the
prosecution’s evidence failed to prove
his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Specifically, the prosecution failed to
show that the police complied with
paragraph 1, Section 21, Article II of R.A.
No. 9165, and with the chain of evidence
requirement of this Act.
In a prosecution for the illegal sale of a
prohibited drug, the prosecution must
prove the following elements: (1) the
identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and (2)
the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. All these require
evidence that the sale transaction
transpired, coupled with the
presentation in court of the corpus
delicti, i.e., the body or substance of the
crime that establishes that a crime has
actually been committed, as shown by
presenting the object of the illegal
transaction. In the present case, the
object is marijuana which the
prosecution must present and prove in
court to be the same item seized from
the accused. It is in this respect that the
prosecution failed.
People vs. Obmiranis
G.R. No. 181492             December 16,
2008
Facts:
That on or about May 18, 2004,
in the City of Manila, Philippines, the
said accused, not having been
authorized by law to sell, trade, deliver
or give away to another any dangerous
drug, did then and there willfully,
unlawfully and knowingly attempt to sell
or offer for sale one (1) transparent
plastic sachet containing TWO POINT
EIGHT ZERO ZERO (2.800) grams of
white crystalline substance known as
"SHABU" containing
methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
violation of RA 9165.
Ruling:
No. The appeal has to be granted.
All told, in view of the deviation by the
buy-bust team from the mandated
conduct of taking post-seizure custody
of the dangerous drug in this case, there
is no way to presume that the members
thereof had performed their duties
regularly. The Court cannot indulge in
the presumption of regularity of official
duty if only to obliterate the obvious
infirmity of the evidence advanced to
support appellant's conviction.
The rule, in a constitutional
system like ours, is invariable regardless
of the reputation of the accused because
the law presumes his innocence until the
contrary is shown. In dubio pro reo.
When moral certainty as to culpability
hangs in the balance, acquittal on
reasonable doubt inevitably becomes a
matter of right.
BALANI: BONDAD to
RESURRECCION CASE
BONDAD vs. PEOPLE
G.R.No. 173804, December 10,
2008
Facts:
Appellant was apprehended in a buy
bust operation wherein
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride,
placed inside a Vicks container, was
found within his person. Appellant
claims that there was failure to follow
the requirements of Sec. 21 of R.A. No.
9165, hence, it compromised the
integrity and evidentiary value of the
allegedly seized items.
Issue:
Whether or not there was a violation of
Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165?
Ruling:
Yes. In the present case, by PO2 Dano’s
claim, he immediately marked the seized
items which were brought to the Crime
Laboratory for examination. By his
admission, however, he did not conduct
an inventory of the items seized. Worse,
no photograph of the items was taken.
There was thus failure to faithfully
follow the requirements of the law.
IN FINE, as the failure to comply with
the aforesaid requirements of the law
compromised the identity of the items
seized, which is the corpus delicti of
each of the crimes charged against
appellant, his acquittal is in order.
PEOPLE vs. GERALDINE MAGAT
G.R. No. 179939, September 29,
2008
Facts:
Appellant was apprehended during a
buy bust operation wherein multiple
sachets were found on her person. The
authorities then brought appellant to the
police station where they booked her.
PO1 Santos marked the plastic sachets
containing shabu with his initials "PCS"
and the letters "A" and "B" for
examination. The plastic sachets were
examined at the PNP Crime Laboratory
Office; the examination yielded positive
for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
Issue:
Whether or not the procedures stated in
Section 21 of R.A. No. 916524 were
complied with.
Ruling:
No. PO1 Santos admitted that he marked
the two plastic sachets containing white
crystalline substance in the police
station. He did not mark the seized
items immediately after he arrested
appellant in the latter’s presence. He
also did not make an inventory and take
a photograph of the confiscated
materials in the presence of appellant.
Other than the three policemen, there
were no other people who participated
in the alleged buy-bust operation. There
was no representative from the media
and the Department of Justice, or any
elected public official who participated
in the operation and who were supposed
to sign an inventory of seized items and
be given copies thereof. None of the
statutory safeguards were observed.
PEOPLE vs ORTEZA
G.R.No. 173051, July 31, 2007
Facts:
Gerardo Orteza was charged with
violation of R.A. No. 9165 after he was
apprehended during a buy-bust
operation wherein a sachet of
methamphetamine hydrochloride was
recovered from him. In his defense,
Orteza argues that there was a violation
in the procedure for the handling of
evidence as stated in Section 21 of R.A.
No. 9165.
Issue:
Whether or not Orteza’s contention is
meritorious.
Ruling:
Yes there appears to be nothing in the
records showing that police officers
complied with the proper procedure in
the custody of seized drugs as specified
in People v. Lim,29 i.e., any
apprehending team having initial
control of said drugs and/or
paraphernalia should, immediately after
seizure or confiscation, have the same
physically inventoried and
photographed in the presence of the
accused, if there be any, and or his
representative, who shall be required to
sign the copies of the inventory and be
given a copy thereof. The failure of the
agents to comply with the requirement
raises doubt whether what was
submitted for laboratory examination
and presented in court was actually
recovered from appellant. It negates the
presumption that official duties have
been regularly performed by the police
officers.
------------------------------------------------
  RA 9165 (Cases of
conviction even if there
is no compliance with the
chain of custody rule)
PEOPLE VS DE LEON
G.R. No. 186471, January 25, 2010
Facts:
De leon was charged with violation of
Section 11 [Possession], Article II of RA
9165. After a buy-bust operation was
conducted, he was caught in the act of
selling a sachet of a crystalline substance
with another sachet being found in his
person after he was apprehended.
Afterwards, appellant was brought to the
police station for investigation. PO2
Collado then placed his initials on the
sachet he found on appellant. The
evidence was subsequently turned over
to the police investigator, PO1 Estrelles,
who prepared a request for its
laboratory examination which yielded
positive results for Methylamphetamine
Hydrochloride, a dangerous drug.
Issue:
Whether or not the prosecution failed to
prove the chain of custody of the alleged
confiscated items from the accused-
appellant.
Ruling:
No. A close examination of the law
reveals that it admits of certain
exceptions. Thus, contrary to the
assertions of appellant, Sec. 21 of the
foregoing law need not be followed as an
exact science. Non-compliance with Sec.
21 does not render an accused’s arrest
illegal or the items seized/confiscated
from him inadmissible.18 What is
essential is "the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the accused."
In the instant case, there was substantial
compliance with the law and the
integrity of the drugs seized from
appellant was preserved. The chain of
custody of the drugs subject matter of
the case was shown not to have been
broken.
PEOPLE, vs. DANILO CRUZ
G.R.No. 185381, December 16,
2009
Facts:
Appellant is charged with the violation
of R.A. 9165 after he was apprehended
during a buy-bust operation. PO3 Arago,
the poseur-buyer inscribed his signature
and the appellant’s initials "DCC" on the
sachet given him by appellant, while
PO2 Aguinaldo inscribed those found in
appellant’s pockets as "DCC-1" and
"DCC-2” which all tested positive for
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or
shabu.
Appellant asserts that the police officers
failed to properly make an inventory of
the shabu allegedly recovered from him.
Further, he argues that they also failed
to photograph or mark the shabu
immediately after the alleged buy-bust
operation in his presence, or his counsel,
a representative from the media, a
representative from the Department of
Justice, or any elected public official.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty for
violation of RA 9165 despite the failure
of the prosecution to overthrow the
constitutional presumption of innocence
in his favor.
Ruling:
Yes. It is very clear from the language of
the law that there are exceptions to the
requirements. Therefore, contrary to
appellant’s assertions, Sec. 21 need not
be followed with pedantic rigor. What is
essential is "the preservation of the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the accused.”
In the case at bar, there was substantial
compliance with the law and the
integrity of the drugs seized was
preserved. The chain of custody of the
drugs subject matter of the case was
established by the testimonies of the
witnesses as not to have been broken.
PEOPLE vs. GRACE VENTURA y
NATIVIDAD
G.R. No. 184957, October 27, 2009
Facts:
Accused was charged with violation of
RA 9165 following his arrest at a buy-
buys operation wherein he was caught
selling crystalline substances to the
poseur-buyer. After frisking the accused,
PO2 Sarmiento recovered from him the
marked money used for the buy-bust
operation. The police asset also handed
to PO2 Sarmiento the shabu he bought
from accused-appellant which
subsequently tested positive for
Methylamphetamine hydrochloride, a
dangerous drug. At the heart of the
defense argument is that the court failed
to account for the chain of custody of the
evidence.
Issue:
Whether or not the defense’ contention
is meritorious.
Ruling:
No non-compliance with the stipulated
procedure, under justifiable grounds,
shall not render void and invalid such
seizures of and custody over said items,
for as long as the integrity and
evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending
officers.
All documentary, testimonial, and object
pieces of evidence, including the
markings on the plastic sachet
containing the shabu, prove that the
substance tested by the forensic chemist,
whose laboratory tests were well-
documented, was the same as that taken
from accused-appellant. In the case at
bar, the evidence clearly shows that
accused-appellant was involved in the
buy-bust operation. Having been caught
in flagrante delicto, accused-appellant’s
participation cannot be doubted.
PEOPLE vs. ALFREDO LAZARO
G.R. No. 186418, October 16, 2009
Facts:
Accused was charged with the violation
of Sections 5, 11, and 15 of RA 9165.
After he was arrested during a buy-bust
operation, multiple sachets of shabu
were recovered in his possession as well
as several drug paraphernalia from
within his residence. In his defense
appellant argues that the prosecution
did not strictly comply with the
procedures laid down in Section 21,
Article II of Republic Act No. 9165.
Issue:
Did the trial court err in disregarding
the prosecution’s failure to comply with
the procedures laid down in RA 9165?
Ruling:
No. The law excuses non-compliance
under justifiable grounds. However,
whatever justifiable grounds may excuse
the police officers involved in the buy-
bust operation in this case from
complying with Section 21 will remain
unknown, because appellant did not
question during trial the safekeeping of
the items seized from him.
Indeed, the police officers’ alleged
violations of Sections 21 and 86 of
Republic Act No. 9165 were not raised
before the trial court but were instead
raised for the first time on appeal. In no
instance did appellant least intimate at
the trial court that there were lapses in
the safekeeping of seized items that
affected their integrity and evidentiary
value. Objection to evidence cannot be
raised for the first time on appeal; when
a party desires the court to reject the
evidence offered, he must so state in the
form of objection. Without such
objection, he cannot raise the question
for the first time on appeal.
PEOPLE vs. RESURRECCION
G.R.No. 186380, October 12, 2009
Facts:
Appellant is charged with violation of
Section 15 of RA 9165. He was arrested
during a buy-bust operation wherein he
was caught selling multiple sachets of
shabu to the poseur-buyer. Accused, in
his defense, argues that the first link in
the chain of custody was not established
by the prosecution. Accused-appellant
points to the failure of the buy-bust
team to immediately mark the seized
drugs as a cause to doubt the identity of
the shabu allegedly confiscated from
him.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused can be held
criminally liable.
Ruling:
Accused is criminally liable, to be able to
create a first link in the chain of custody,
then, what is required is that the
marking be made in the presence of the
accused and upon immediate
confiscation. "Immediate confiscation"
has no exact definition. Thus, in People
v. Gum-Oyen, testimony that included
the marking of the seized items at the
police station and in the presence of the
accused was sufficient in showing
compliance with the rules on chain of
custody. Marking upon immediate
confiscation contemplates even marking
at the nearest police station or office of
the apprehending team.
CATUNGAL: TEODORO to
RAFAEL case
People vs Teodoro
G.R. No. 185164, June 22, 2009
Facts:
Appellant claims that the prosecution
failed to establish the evidence’s chain of
custody because the buy-bust team
failed to strictly comply with Section
2124 of RA 9165 and Section 2 of
Dangerous Drugs Board Resolution No.
1.25 He adds that the policemen’s failure
to abide by these provisions casts doubt
on the admissibility of the evidence
adduced against him.
Issue:
Whether or not the chain of custody was
properly established.
Held:
Contrary to what appellant wants to
portray, the chain of custody of the
seized prohibited drugs was shown not
to have been broken. There can be no
doubt that the drugs seized from
appellant were the same ones examined
in the crime laboratory. Plainly, the
prosecution established the crucial link
in the chain of custody of the seized
shabu from the time they were first
discovered until they were brought for
examination. This Court finds, as did the
trial court and the CA, the accounts of
the arresting/entrapping police officers,
as to what occurred in the evening of
May 28, 2004, credible. For, aside from
the presumption that they – the police
operatives – regularly performed their
duties, we note that these operatives, as
prosecution witnesses, gave consistent
and straightforward narrations of what
transpired on May 28, 2004.
People v. Gum-Oyen
G.R. No. 182231, April 16, 2009
Facts:
Appellant raised a lone assignment of
error' "the trial court gravely erred in
convicting accused-appellant of the
crime charged despite the failure of the
prosecution to establish the identity of
the corpus delicti."
Issue:
Whether or not the conviction of the
accused was proper.
Held:
The prosecution’s evidence sufficiently
established the unbroken chain of
custody of the seized drugs beginning
from the entrapment team, to the
investigating officer, to the forensic
chemist whose laboratory tests were
well-documented, up to the time there
were offered in evidence. The chain-of-
custody rule requires that the admission
of an exhibit be preceded by evidence
sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the
proponent claims it to be. The arresting
officers also strictly complied with the
guidelines prescribed by law regarding
the custody and control of the seized
drugs. There was testimony regarding
the marking of the seized items at the
police station and in the presence of
appellant. Likewise there was mention
that an elected official was present
during the inventory. In addition, it
appears on record that the team
photographed the contraband in
accordance with law. Absent any
indication that the police officers were
ill-motivated in testifying against
appellant, full credence should be given
to their testimonies. In sum, contrary to
appellant’s lone argument, the
prosecution established the corpus
delicti with moral certainty. Finally, it
bears underscoring that appellant
himself admitted that he was carrying
marijuana at the time of his arrest and
even though he knew it was against the
law to so possess it in any amount.
People v. Llamado
G.R. No. 185278, March 13, 2009
Facts:
Accused-appellants hinge their appeal
on the alleged failure of the police to
comply with the procedure in the
custody of seized prohibited and
regulated drugs as embodied in Sec.
21(a) of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 9165. They alleged
that there was no conclusive evidence to
prove that the substances seized from
accused-appellants were the same
substances subjected to examination
and presented in court.
Issue:
In essence, accused-appellants question
the chain of custody over the alleged
confiscated prohibited drugs and
Melchor’s conviction for illegal
possession of shabu.
Held:
The failure on the part of the police
officers to take photographs and make
an inventory of the drugs seized from
the appellant was not fatal because the
prosecution was able to preserve the
integrity and evidentiary value of the
said illegal drugs. PO2 Brubio was able
to put the necessary markings on the
sachet of shabu bought from appellant,
for identification purposes, immediately
after the consummation of the drug sale.
He personally delivered the same
specimen to the PNP Crime Laboratory
for chemical analysis on the same day
the entrapment was conducted. Lastly,
PO2 Brubio was able to identify the said
markings in court.
People vs Macatingag
G.R. No. 181037
Facts:
Appellant avers that the trial court and
the Court of Appeals gravely erred in
giving undue credence to the
testimonies of the police officers and in
upholding the presumption of regularity
in the performance of their official
functions. He also assails the validity of
his arrest because the police officers
were not armed with any warrant when
he was arrested. Finally, he assails the
propriety of the chain of custody of the
shabu allegedly seized from him due to
the non-observation of Section 21,
Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
Issue:
Whether or not the evidence is enough
to convict the accused.
Held:
The integrity of the evidence is
presumed to be preserved unless there is
a showing of bad faith, ill will, or proof
that the evidence has been tampered
with. Appellant in this case has the
burden to show that the evidence was
tampered or meddled with to overcome
a presumption of regularity in the
handling of exhibits by public officers
and a presumption that public officers
properly discharge their
duties._Appellant failed to discharge
such burden.

This Court has held that non-compliance
with Section 21, Article II of R.A. No.
9165 will not render an accused’s arrest
illegal or the items seized/confiscated
from him inadmissible. What is of
utmost importance is the preservation of
the integrity and the evidentiary value of
the seized items, as the same would be
utilized in the determination of the guilt
or innocence of the accused.
these rules. For evidence to be
inadmissible, there should be a law or
rule which forbids its reception.
Nothing in the law, however, will bring
about the non-admissibility of the
confiscated and/or seized drugs due to
non-compliance with Section 21 of
Republic Act No. 9165.
TITLE VI – CRIMES AGAINST
PUBLIC MORALS

People vs del Monte  Article 195. Acts

G.R.No. 179940, April 23, 2008 punishable in gambling
and betting (P.D. 1602 –
Facts: Gambling Law)
Appellant anchors his appeal on the
arresting policemen’s failure to strictly People vs Punto
comply with Section 21 of Republic Act 68 Phil 481
No. 9165. He claims that pictures of him
together with the alleged confiscated Facts:
shabu were not taken immediately upon The accused was prosecuted in the Court
his arrest as shown by the testimony of of First Instance of Laguna for a
the lone prosecution witness. He adds violation of article 195 of the Revised
that PO1 Tolentino and PO1 Antonio Penal Code, as amended by
Barreras, the police officers who had Commonwealth Act No. 235.
initial custody of the drug allegedly
seized and confiscated, did not conduct Issue:
a physical inventory of the same in his The appellant challenges the
presence as shown by their joint constitutionality of Commonwealth Act
affidavit of arrest. No. 236, amendatory to article 195 of the
Revised Penal Code on the ground that
Issue: the penalty is cruel and unusual (par. 18,
Whether or not the trial court gravely sec. 1, art. III).
erred in finding the accused-appellant
guilty of the offense charged despite the Held:
inadmissibility of the evidence against The punishment provided, far from
him for failure of the arresting officers to being cruel and unusual, is motivated by
comply with SECTION 21 OF R.A. 9165 a wholesome purpose, namely, to
effectuate early repression of an evil
Held: that, in the opinion of the Legislature,
In non-compliance with Section 21 of undermines the social, moral, and
said law, particularly the making of the economic growth of the nation, and is." .
inventory and the photographing of the . best calculated to answer the ends of
drugs confiscated and/or seized, will not precaution necessary to deter others
render the drugs inadmissible in from the commission of like
evidence. Under Section 3 of Rule 128 offenses, . . .’’ (Jackson v. U. S. [C. C. A.,
of the Rules of Court, evidence is Alaska, 1900], 102 Fed., 473, 488).
admissible when it is relevant to the
issue and is not excluded by the law or U.S. vs Salaveria
39 Phil 102
Facts:
The municipal council of Orion, Bataan,
enacted, on February 28, 1917, an
ordinance which, among other things,
prohibited the playing of panguingue on
days not Sundays or legal holidays
The justice of the peace of Orion, when
this ordinance went into effect, was
Prudencio Salaveria, now the defendant
and appellant. Notwithstanding his
official station, on the evening of March
8, 1917, not a Sunday or a legal holiday,
seven persons including the justice of
the peace and his wife were surprised by
the police while indulging in a game of
panguingue in the house of the justice of
the peace. The chief of police took
possession of the cards, the counters
(sigayes), a tray, and P2.07 in money,
used in the game.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused should be
punished under the maximum penalty.
Held:
The culprit in this case is himself a
member of the Judiciary. Instead of
enforcing the law, he has scorned it. His
example to the people of Orion has been
pernicious in its influence. If gambling is
to be suppressed, not only the weak and
ignorant must be punished, but those
with full knowledge of the law and the
consequences of violation. We would
accordingly suggest to Courts of First
Instance that in all cases arising under
the Gambling Law or ordinances, except
for unusual circumstances, a prison
sentence should be imposed, if
permitted by the law or ordinance. We
further suggest that, where the
defendant has been found guilty and is a
man of station, he be given the
maximum penalty.
U.S. vs Rafael, 23 Phil 184
Facts:
These defendants were charged with a
violation of Act No. 1757. The complaint
presented against them contained the
following accusations.
"That on or about the afternoon of
August 1 of the present year, 1911, and in
the jurisdiction of this municipality of
Iloilo, Philippine Islands, the said
accused, Cayetano Rafael, Perseveranda
Lopez, Victor Discipulo, Victoriano
Rafael and Guillermo Juanesa did
intentionally, maliciously and criminally
play, making bets in money, the game of
chance called monte; in violation of the
law."
Issue:
Whether or not the betting and
gambling was sufficiently established to
convict the accused.
Held:
It will be noted that the appellants claim
that the lower court committed an error
in deciding that the defendants were
guilty of playing the prohibited game of
monte "con apuestas de dinero." The
appellant has evidently overlooked
section 7 of Act No. 1757, which
provides, among other things, that —
"The playing at and conducting of any
game of monte . . . is hereby prohibited,
and any person taking any part
therein . . . shall be punished as
provided in section 3 hereof."cralaw
virtua1aw library
While it may be true, generally that
persons who play the game of monte
play for money, yet, nevertheless, the
use of money in the game is not a
necessary element in the crime
described or defined by the law. It seems
that the purpose of the law was to
prohibit absolutely the game of monte in
the Philippine Islands. The mere fact
that money was or was not used in no
way constitutes an element of the crime.

CERNA: PALMA to KOTTINGER
case
US vs Palma
Facts:
Francisco Palma was arrested for illegal
gambling. He contends that he was a
bystander and did not even make bets
during said gambling.
Issue:
WON Mr. Palma should be convicted of
illegal gambling
Held:
No. Mere bystanders or spectators in a
gambling game is not criminally liable,
because he doses not take part therein,
directly or indirectly. The las does not
make the mere presence in a gambling
house an offense.
US v Filart
Facts:
Filart et.al sold tickets to people for a
chance to win a car. This was done
without any permit or whatsoever.
Issue:
WON act committed can be considered
as lottery
Held:
Yes. Lottery is defined as a scheme for
the distribution of prizes by chance
among persons who have paid, or agreed
to pay, a valuable consideration for the
chance to obtain a prize. As seen, the act
has all the necessary elements of lottery-
consideration, chance, and prize. If the
scheme is such that human reason,
foresight, sagacity, or design cannot
enable one to know or determine the
result until the same has been
accomplished, then it is lottery.
El Debate v Topacio
Facts:
The El Debate, a newspaper, published
an announcement thay it was awarding
prizes aggregating P 18,000 to the
winners in two guessing contests:
(1) for the nearest approximate guesses
as to the total number of votes that will
be cast for any of the winning candidates
for Carnival Queen in the provinces or in
Manila; and
(2) for the nearest approximate guesses
as to the total number of votes that the
Queen-elect will receive for the Carnival
Queenship. To enter the contest, one
must subscribe to the El Debate
newspaper.
Issue:
WON this can be considered a lottery
Held:
There was lottery. The argument that
there was no consideration for the
reason that each subscriber to the El
Debate received the full value of his
money by receiving the paper every day
for the period he subscribed, is tenable
only as respect those persons who would
subscribe to the paper regardless of the
inducement to win prize. The position is
fallacious, as to other persons who
subscribed merely to win a prize.
US v Jose
Facts:
Jose and Bo owned a mercantile firm, in
which Macao lottery tickets were seized.
Jose contended that he had no
knowledge of the existence of tickets, Bo
corroborated such claim.
Issue:
WON Jose is guilty of possession?
Held:
No. Although the possession of said
tickets is prima facie evidence of an
intent to sell, distribute- defendant
successfully established of him not
knowing of the existence of tickets
within his premises. Animus Possidendi
and said presumption is destroyed and wearing their tribal/cultural attire,
defendant acquitted. where some were naked from the waist
up.
US v Reyes
Issue:
Facts:
WON possessed photographs were
Counterfeiting of tickets do not give rise
obscene
to the evil sought to be eradicated. The
Supreme Court has not decided on the Held:
lottery tickets' genuineness. The
No. The word "obscene" ands the term
defendant was still convicted of
"obscenity" may be defined as meaning
possession of such tickets.
something offensive to chastify, decency,
US v Samaniego et.al or delicacy. "Indeceny" is an act against
behavior and a just delicacy. The test
Facts:
ordinarily followed by the courts in
Defendants privately had carnal determining whether a particular
knowledge, despite being legally married publication or other thing is obscene
to another. within the meaning of the statutes, is
whether the tendency of the matter
Issue: charged as obscene, is to deprave or
WON defendanta are guilty of Grave corrupt those whose minds are open to
Scandal such immoral influences and into whose
hands a publication or other article
Held: charged as being obscene may fall.
No. The act should be committed in Another test of obscenity is that which
public places or within the public shocks the ordinary and common sense
knowledge or view. If no publicity was of men as an indecency.
done, no scandal exists. The test of obscenity is this: Where the
US vs Catajay tendency of the matter charged as
obscene is to deprave and corrupt those
Facts: whose minds are open to such immoral
Defendant attempted to rape a woman influences, and into whose hands a
at night, in a private house, where only a publication of this sort may fall;" and
few persons were present. where "it who suggest to the minds of
the young of either sex, or even to
Issue: persons of more advanced years,
thoughts of the most impure and
WON defendant is guilty of grave
libidinous character. The pictures are
scandal
not obscene.
Held:
No. When act is committed at night, in a ----------------------------------------------
private house, and at a time when no
CULLO: GO PIN to BAES case
one was present except the accused, the
mistress of the house, and one servant-
these circumstances do not constitute
PEOPLE V GO PIN
the degree of publicity which is an
essential element of the crime. (GR No. L-7491, Aug 08, 1955 )
US vs Kottinger
Facts: FACTS:

Defendant was accused of possessing Go Pin was a Chinese Citizen who

photographs of Non-christian Filipinos exhibited his films and sculpturesat
Globe Arcade, City of Manila. It was
alleged that the said films and sculptures
were indecent or/and immoral. As such,
he was charged with a violation of
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code.
Go Pin did not deny the nudity of such
films but he claimed that the slight
nudity was made for the sake of art and
should not be considered as offensive.
ISSUE: Whether or not Go Po violated
Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code.
RULING:
Yes.
As a general rule, if nude pictures were
made for art, there would be no offense
committed. However, in this case the
films and sculpture were not exactly
used for art’s sake but for commercial
purposes.
The persons who went to see those
pictures and paid entrance fees for the
privilege of doing so, were not exactly
artists and persons interested in art and
who generally go to art exhibitions and
galleries to satisfy and improve their
artistic tastes, but rather people desirous
of satisfying their morbid curiosity and
taste, and lust, and for love for
excitement, including the youth who
because of their immaturity are not in a
position to resist and shield themselves
from the ill and perverting effects of
these pictures.
------------------------------------------------
 Article 202. Vagrants and
prostitutes.
PEOPLE V. MOLINA
FACTS:
Valeriano Molina was convicted
for violation Opium Law. After his
release in 1910, he had been engaged in
no lawful occupation, and was without
apparent means of support other than
that supplied by his mother. He spent
his time loitering about the streets and
frequenting cockpits and other gambling
houses. Thus, an information was filed
against Molina for violating Act 519 for
vagrancy. The accused testified that he
was indeed supported by her mother
and worked on her property.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused
violated Act 519.
RULING:
Yes.
In the case of Gavin vs. The State (96
Miss., 377), the court said that:
"In vagrancy, the offense consists in
general worthless-ness; that is to say, in
being idle, and, though able to work,
refusing to do so, and living without
labor, or on the charity of others."
Philippine Vagrancy Act (Act No. 519),
which provides that:
"Every person having no apparent
means of subsistence, who has the
physical ability to work, and who
neglects to apply himself or herself to
some lawful callings is a vagrant."
It is apparent that a 33-year old able-
bodied man was living under the charity
of his mother. The Supreme Court that
there being no apparent lawful calling or
occupation, who makes no effort to
support himself is a vagrant. In this
case, frequenting cockpits and gambling
places cannot is not an apparent mean
of supporting himself.
U.S V. HART
FACTS:
HART, NATIVIDAD and MILLER
were charged with violating Act 519. It
was alleged that the 3 were vagrants as
they were loitering in and gambling
around the city. It was established
however that the 3 have their own
means of living but were well known
gamblers. The Attorney-General argued
that "visible means of support" as used
in that clause does not apply to "every
person found loitering about saloons or
dram shops or gambling houses," but is
confined entirely to "or tramping or
straying through the country." It is
insisted that had it been intended for
"without visible means of support" to
qualify the first part of the clause, either
the comma after gambling
houses would have been ommitted, or
else a comma after country would have
been inserted.
ISSUE:
Whether an accused with visible
means of support may be convicted of
vagrancy.
RULING:
No. Here, the Supreme Court
held that it is necessary for a person to
be without any means of support for him
to be labeled as vagrant, as opposed to
the Attorney-General’s contention. The
Supreme Court used statutory
construction as basis and ruled that the
classifications cannot be further divided
as it is already separated by semicolons.
In this case, the defendants were
earning a living by legitimate methods in
a degree of comfort higher than the
average. Accused were acquitted.
U.S. V. CRUZ
FACTS:
In 1917, The herein defendant
was a cochero who solicited an
American soldier to go with him in his
rig to find a prostitute. An information
was filed against the accused for having
violated Section 733 of the Revised
Ordinances of the City of Manila.
ISSUE:
Whether the accused was a
vagrant as defined by the said
ordinance.
RULING:
Yes. Section 733 of the Revised
Ordinances of the city of Manila
includes as a class of individuals who
shall be deemed to be vagrants, any
person who "acts as pimp or procurer."
The words quoted are defined and
construed in the decision.
TITLE VII – CRIMES COMMITTED
BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
 Article 203. Who are
public officers
MANIEGO V. PEOPLE
FACTS:
The herein accused is a laborer
who is in charge of issuing summons
and subpoenas under the sala of a
certain judge in the City of Manila.
According to the complainant, the
accused offered him to fix his penalty by
paying 10 pesos instead of paying the
full amount of 15 pesos. However, as a
defense, the accused denied the
allegation and stated that he cannot be
considered as a public officer or
employee since he was a mere laborer by
appointment he may not be convicted,
because the preparation of motions for
dismissal is not surely the official
function of a laborer
ISSUE:
Whether or not the accused was a
public officer or employee.
RULING:
Although originally appointed as
a mere laborer, this defendant was on
several occasions designated or given
the work to prepare motions for
dismissal. He was consequently
temporarily discharging such public
functions. And as in the performance
thereof he accepted, even solicited, a
monetary reward, he is certainly guilty
as charged.
-----------------------------------------------
 Article 204. Knowingly
rendering unjust judgment
GOTAMCO v. CHAN SENG
FACTS:
Antonio Tampoco died in 1920
leaving a will to his children. At that
time, all his children were minors so the
court appointed commissioners for the
for the estate of the deceased. The
commissioners were allowed by the
court to publish notice to the crediors to
file for claims. Subsequently, an
allowance for claim was presented by
the commissioners. However, the claims
were discovered to be fraudulent as it
was only taken from the books of the
deceased. Thus, the lower courts denied
the claim leading to the case at hand.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the claim may be
granted.
RULING:
No. A judgement is the final
consideration and determination of a
court of competent jurisdiction upon the
matters submitted to it, in an action or
proceeding.
In this case, there was no claim made,
filed or presented by anyone. Legally
speaking, the allowance of the claim
would be like rendering a judgement
without filing of a complaint, or even the
making or presentment of a claim. To
legalize the allowance of the claim with
all of the formalities and requisites of a
final judgment, would be a travesty upon
justice. 
STA. MARIA v. UBAY
FACTS:
The complainant alleges that the
respondent Judge promulgated a
decision in Civil Case C-2052 contrary to
the decisions of the Supreme Court The
complainant states that the respondent
Judge, "in awarding to the plaintiffs (in
Civil Case C-2052) in toto  what they
prayed for in their complaint and
amended complaint did so in bad faith
and with full knowledge that said
plaintiffs are not entitled thereto.  FACTS:
ISSUE:
Whether or not the judge is guilty
of rendering unjust judgement.
RULING:
No. In order that a judge may be
held liable for knowingly rendering an
unjust judgment, it must be shown
beyond doubt that the judgment is
unjust in the sense that it is contrary to
law or is not supported by the evidence,
and the same was made with conscious
and deliberate intent to do an injustice.
The rule requires that the judgment
should be unjust for being contrary to
law and for not being supported by the
evidence.
U.S. v. GACUTAN
FACTS:
Gacutan, the accused, was, on the
2d of October, 1913, convicted of bribery
in the Court of First Instance of
Cagayan, it having been found that
he accepted from Pascua a carabao as a
bribe in consideration of which he
agreed to and subsequently did decide a
criminal case then pending before him
against Pagulayan and in favor of the
people without regard to the evidence
upon which the same was founded.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the judgement
rendered is unjust.
RULING:
No. it does not appear that the
accused knowingly rendered an unjust
judgment even if we concede that the
judgment was unjust. The mere fact that
the court may not have had jurisdiction
of the subject matter of the action does
not necessarily establish the fact that his
judgment was unjust.
-----------------------------------------------
 Article 205. Judgment
rendered through
negligence
EVANGELISTA v. BAES
Ferardo Basuan, one of the
plaintiffs in CAR Case No. 1438, failed to
appear at the pre-trial, but Paciano
Basuan, his co-plaintiff, appeared. For
failure of Ferardo to appear, Judge Baes
ordered the dismissal of the entire case,
thus affecting also Paciano, which
should not have been the case. The
transcript of the stenographic notes
taken at the pre-trial indicates that the
hearing of the case had been postponed
several times at the behest of the
plaintiffs; that they were previously
warned that the pre-trial would proceed
whether they had a lawyer or not; that
despite this warning, Paciano appeared
without counsel.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Hon. Baes is
guilty of violating Art. 205 of the RPC.
RULING:
No. Although there may be abuse
of discretion in issuing an order, it does
not necessarily follow that there is bad
faith or that said abuse of discretion
signifies ignorance of the law on the part
of a judge. Abuse of discretion signifies
ignorance of the law on the part of a
judge. Abuse of discretion by a trial
court does not necessarily maen ulterior
motive, arbitrary conduct or willful
disregard of litigant’s right.
ECHIVERE: RUBIO to GIMINEA
case
YARANON vs RUBIO
FACTS:
Administrative complaint against
Judge Antonio Rubio of the Municipality
of Inopacan Leyte for alleged (1)
incompetence and/or ignorance of the
law and (2) delaying justice.  unit of conductors, assistant conductors,
Atty. Pedro H. Yaranon filed a charge of
estafa with Judge Rubio's court against
the spouses Florderico Puzon and
Vitaliana Mandac Puzon, his tenants or
overseers.
Atty. Yaranon said tenants with having
failed to account for agricultural items
given to them in trust. After due trial
wherein the only witness of Atty.
Yaranon was himself, Judge Rubio
acquitted the accused.
ISSUE:
WON JUDGE RUBIO IS GUILTY OF
RENDERING AN UNJUST
JUDGMENT.
RULING: NO.
The Supreme Court held that,
absent any evidence of ill-motive or
improper consideration, the same
cannot by itself prove the charge laid
against Judge Rubio. The decision
discusses creditably the evidence of the
parties and no indication therein of any
untoward factor that could have induced
Judge Rubio to be unfair to Atty.
Yaranon. The latter may have a different
view of his case, but mere error of
judgment, assuming its existence, and
the Court held that here there was none,
cannot serve as basis for a charge of
knowingly rendering an unjust
judgment, there being no proof or even
allegation of bad faith.
-----------------------------------------------
 Article 206. Unjust
interlocutory order
KAPISANAN NG MGA
MANGGAGAWA SA MANILA
RAILROAD COMPANY, YARD
CREW UNION etc.
FACTS:
On March 7, 1955, the
KAPISANAN filed a petition praying
that it be certified as the exclusive
bargaining agent in the Manila Railroad
Company. A decision was promulgated,
in which the Court of Industrial
Relations found three unions
appropriate for purposes of collective
bargaining, to wit: (1) The unit of
locomotive drivers, firemen, assistant
firemen and motormen-otherwise
known as the engine crew unit: (2) the
unit agents, assistant route agents and
train posters, otherwise known as the
train crew unit, and (3) the unit of all
the rest of the company personnel,
except the supervisors, temporary
employees, the members of the Auditing
Department, the members of the
security guard and professional and
technical employees, referred to by the
respondent court as the unit of the rest
of the employees.
The Court of Industrial Relations,
through the Hon. Arsenio Martinez,
Associate Judge, handed down an order,
dated June 8, 1959, which orders a
plebiscite to be conducted among the
employees in the three proposed groups,
namely: the Engineering Department,
the Station Employees and the Yard
Crew Personnel shall vote, in a secret
ballot to be conducted by this Court, on
the question of whether or not they
desire to be separated from the unit of
the rest of the employees being
represented by the Kapisanan.
ISSUE: WON the orders are
interlocutory in nature.
RULING: YES.
The test in determining whether
an order or judgment is interlocutory or
final is "Does it leave something to be
done in the trial court with respect to the
merits of the case? If it does, it is
interlocutory; if it does not, it is final”.
Having in view the avowed purpose of
the orders in question, one should not
stretch his imagination far to see that
they are clearly interlocutory, as
they leave something more to be done in
the trial court and do not decide one way
or the other the petitions of the
respondent unions.
-----------------------------------------------
 Article 208. Prosecution
of offenses; negligence
and tolerance
THE UNITED STATES vs. VICENTE
MENDOZA
FACTS:
About 8 o'clock in the evening of
August 1, 1910, Bernabe Mangunay,
approached the house of Mateo del
Rosario to ask for something to eat. As
he was then carrying a papaya firebrand
and got too close to the house, the eaves
thereof caught fire and its nipa roof
immediately started to burn, a large part
of it being consumed. On the following
day the owner of the house, Mateo del
Rosario, reported the occurrence to
Vicente Mendoza, the lieutenant of the
barrio, and accused Bernabe Mangunay
of starting the fire. Mendoza thereupon
ordered the junior lieutenant, Candido
Yabut, to summon the accused. But
when the latter appeared, said Mendoza
took no action whatever, nor did he even
report the facts to the proper higher
authority, but, on the contrary,
permitted the incendiary to return
home.
ISSUE:
WON Mendoza is guilty of neglect of
duties of his office for maliciously failing
to move the prosecution and
punishment of the delinquent.
RULING: NO.
In the case at bar there are
indications that the fire was accidental
and, if so, the acquittal of the accused in
the other case was perhaps due to the
lack of proof of his guilt as an incendiary
and to the fact that the acts charged do
not constitute a crime. Therefore, upon
this hypothesis, and because the alleged
incendiary was acquitted, it is neither
proper nor possible to convict the
defendant, Mendoza, as accessory after
the fact, of Bernabe Mangunay, who was
acquitted of the said crime of arson.
PEOPLE v. NICOLAS L. MINA
FACTS:
Nicolas Mina being the chief of
police of the municipality of Asingan,
Pangasinan, in breach of his official
duty, maliciously defaulted in the
prosecution and punishment of the
violators of the law prohibiting and
penalizing the game of chance called
’Jueteng,’ in that he failed to file the
corresponding criminal action against
Juan Lazo who was caught possessing
jueteng lists and other objects relating to
said game, and tolerated and permitted
said Juan Lazo to continue acting as
jueteng collector.
ISSUE:
WON NICOLAS MINA IS
GUILTY?
RULING: YES.
The evidence consists of sworn
statements of Luciano de Guzman and
Canuto de Leon who declared that they
saw the arrest of Juan Lazo and heard
MINA say to him that he would be
released on condition that he would
accompany MINA to the place where
Jueteng was being played and would
help in the arrest of the bankers and
collectors thereof. This evidence, if
admitted, far from justifying the conduct
of the defendant, would have further
demonstrated his guilt, for the reason
that there is no law empowering him to
release a violator even if the latter agrees
to aid him in the capture of other
culprits.
BEATRIZ RAMOS VDA. DE
BAGATUA, ET AL vs PEDRO A.
REVILLA etc.
FACTS:
 On June 29, 1954, the Bagatuas,
together with their spouses and their
mother Beatriz Ramos, executed a
public instrument which was duly
registered, wherein they sold and
conveyed ownership unto Burgos
Pangilinan of a part of the lot with an
area of 3,358 square meters in
consideration of the sum of P6,000. On
June 21, 1956, however, Rodrigo
Bagatua, acting for himself and on
behalf of his sisters, accused Burgos L.
Pangilinan of estafa before the City
Attorney of Quezon City for having
allegedly induced them to sign papers
supposedly necessary for the subdivision
of their lot, but one of which turned out
to be a deed of sale.
The Assistant City Attorney of Quezon
City, conducted a preliminary
investigation which lasted for several
days. The Assistant City Attorney, in a
memorandum addressed to the City
Attorney recommended the dismissal of
the complaint for lack of merit.
Accordingly, the complaint was
dismissed.
ISSUE: WON REVILLA AND LOMBOS
in dismissing the complaint committed a
grave abuse of discretion.
RULING: NO.
A fiscal's failure to give credence
or weight to the testimony of witnesses
or otherwise appreciate the evidence
presented in a preliminary investigation,
unless patently capricious or arbitrary,
cannot be taken as an abuse of
discretion, for he must have formed his
impression after observing and
evaluating the demeanor and conduct of
a witness testifying before him.
PEOPLE vs. MALABANAN
FACTS:
In July, 1933, MALABANAN was
the municipal president of the of San
Juan, Province of Batangas, and was
engaged in raising funds for the
construction of a ward in the provincial
hospital for tubercular patients.
Notwithstanding all his efforts to secure
contributions, he was unable to
approximate the quota which had been
set for his town by the provincial
authorities, and he therefore on July 22,
and July 29, organized and held cock-
fights, neither day being authorized by
law for such purposes.
ISSUE: WON MALABANAN is guilty of
dereliction of the duties of his office.
RULING: NO.
The Supreme Court found
MALABANAN not guilty of a violation of
article 208 but guilty of a violation of
article 199, paragraph 1, of the Revised
Penal Code.
-----------------------------------------------
 Article 209. Betrayal of
trust by an attorney or
solicitor
PEOPLE vs. SANDIGANBAYAN
FACTS:
Honrada was the Clerk of Court and
Acting Stenographer of the First
Municipal Circuit Trial Court, San
Francisco-Bunawan-Rosario in Agusan
del Sur. Paredes was successively the
Provincial Attorney of Agusan del Sur,
then Governor of the same province, and
is at present a Congressman. Sansaet
was a practicing attorney who served as
counsel for Paredes in several instances
pertinent to the criminal charges
involved in the present recourse.
ISSUE:
WON the projected testimony of
Sansaet, as proposed state witness, is
barred by the attorney-client privilege.
RULING: NO.
The application of the attorney-
client privilege, however, the period to
be considered is the date when the
privileged communication was made
by the client to the attorney in relation
to either a crime committed in the past
or with respect to a crime intended to
be committed in the future. In other
words, if the client seeks his lawyer's
advice with respect to a crime that the
former has theretofore committed, he is
given the protection of a virtual
confessional seal which the attorney-
client privilege declares cannot be
broken by the attorney without the
client's consent. The same privileged
confidentiality, however, does not attach
with regard to a crime which a client
intends to commit thereafter or in the
future and for purposes of which he
seeks the lawyer's advice.
------------------------------------------------
 Article 210. Direct
Bribery
PEOPLE vs. SOPE
FACTS:
Juliana Chan, testified that at
about six o'clock in the evening of April
8, 1945, when she was on her way home
after selling a ring in a Bambang market,
a calesa suddenly stopped in front of
her, from which the appellants Sope
pointed his revolver to her, while Cruz
poked her back with a hard object. The
other accused, Tomas Dimalanta,
remained in the calesa. Cruz ordered her
to board the rig, which she did, followed
by him. Sope did not join them but
stayed behind.
Cruz and Dimalanta pretended to be
peace officers who had apprehended her
because they had found her violating the
law, pointing to her a bag in the rig
which they themselves had brought
along, by which they meant that she was
unlawfully dealing in U.S. Army goods.
The calesa was ordered to stop at
Herbosa Street in front of the Victory
Cafe where the two accused even asked
the complainant to take coffee with
them. But all the time they kept
intimidating and threatening her if she
did not give them money. As a result of
their concerted action, she finally gave
them P200.
ISSUE: WON Sope and Cruz is guilty
of the crime of Direct Bribery.
RULING: NO.
The Court held that, what is clear
and uncontradicted by the facts of this
case is that it was the prosecuting
attorney's office that took charge of the
investigation and filing of the charges
for robbery, and nothing like having so
framed her accusation as to make the
crime committed by the accused appear
to the robbery instead of bribery could
be attributed to the offended party. It is
very logical that the prosecuting
attorney, being the one charged with the
prosecution of offenses, should be
determine the information to be filed
and cannot be controlled by the
offended party.
UNITED STATES VS. GIMENEA
FACTS:
Francisco Gimenea, sergeant, of
the Constabulary had an arrangement
with an old man to allow him to escape
from the hospital. One evening when
Perez and his brother-in-law arrived at
the hospital with their father's supper,
the old man told them that the matter
had been arranged and that they were to
give Gimenea P10.
ISSUE: WON GIMENEA IS GUILTY
OF THE CRIME OF DIRECT BRIBERY.
RULING: YES.
To constitute the crime of bribery
as provided in this article, four things
are necessary: (1) That the defendant be
a public officer according to the meaning
of this term in article 401; (2) that he
has received either personally or
through another gifts or presents or
accepted offers or promises; (3) that
such reception of gifts or presents or
acceptance of offers or promises has
been for the purpose of executing a
crime; and (4) that the act constituting
the crime relates to the exercise of the
office which the public officer
discharges.
All these concur in the present
case.
FULGERAS: RICHARD to
SORIANO case
U.S. VS RICHARD
6 PHIL 545
Issue: Whether the accused is guilty of
direct bribery.
Facts: S. A. Reich and one Rosenburg,
his partner, imported from China in the
summer of 1903, 41 mules, which they
accepted at the time they bought them to
sell to the Insular Government of the
Philippines. Reich drew a check for 500
pesos to the order of I. Becck and
delivered it to the latter. Beck notified
Mehan, the superintendent of city
transportation, that he had this check
for him, but Mehan refused to receive it.
Prior to the arrival of the animals in
Manila, Beck had a talk with Mehan in
which he asked Mehan to receive a
thousand pesos and distribute it among
the employees who would have to do
with the purchase of the animals. Mehan
rejected this proposition and told Beck
that he, Beck, had better drop the
matter.
Ruling: No. A defendant cannot be
convicted of bribery under the
provisions of article 381 of the Penal
Code unless there is evidence to show a
promise, express or implied, on his part
to do an unlawful act in consideration of
money previously paid to him or of
offers or promises previously made to
him.
PEOPLE VS ABESAMIS, 93 PHIL
712
Issue: Whether the accused is guilty of
direct bribery.
Facts: The said accused being then the
Justice of the Peace of Echague and
Angadanan, Isabela, and as such is a
public officer, demand and receive from
Marciana Sauri the amount of P1,100,
with the agreement that he would
dismiss the case for Robbery in Band
with Rape against Emiliano Castillo, son
of said Marciana Sauri.
Ruling: No. The crime charged does
not come under the first paragraph. To
fall within that paragraph the act which
the public officer has agreed to perform
must be criminal. To dismiss a criminal
complaint, as the accused is alleged to
have agreed to do in the present case,
does not necessarily constitute a
criminal act, for the dismissal may be
proper, there being no allegation to the
contrary.
U.S. VS NAVARRO, 3 PHIL 633
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
U.S. VS JADER, 1 PHIL 297
Issue: Whether the accused is guilty of
estafa
Facts: Damaso Jader, as cabeza de
barangay and teniente of the barrio of
the town of Candelaria, accepted cocks,
hens, bamboo, and other articles under
promise to relieve the persons from
whom he had obtained them of the
obligation to perform certain duties
which they as citizens were required to
perform.
Ruling: No. A municipal official who
demands and exacts gifts from persons
under promise to relieve them from
certain obligations to the municipality is
guilty of estafa and not of bribery.
----------------------------------------------
 Article 211. Indirect
Bribery
FORMILLEZA VS
SANDIGANBAYAN, 159 SCRA 1
Issue: Whether the accused is guilty of
direct bribery.
Facts: Petitioner Leonor Formilleza has
been with the government service for
around 20 years. She was the personnel
supervisor of the regional office of the
National Irrigation Administration
(NIA). Her duties include the processing
of the appointment papers of employees.
On the other hand, a certain Mrs.
Estrella Mutia was an employee of the
NIA from February, 1978 up to March,
1985. Her appointment was coterminous
with a project of the NIA. Mrs. Mutia
testified that she took steps to obtain
either a permanent or at the least a
renewed appointment; that when she
approached the regional director about
the matter she was advised to see the
petitioner who was to determine the
employees to be appointed or promoted;
and that the petitioner refused to attend
to her appointment papers unless the
latter were given some money.
Ruling: No. The respondent court ruled
that the crime committed by the
petitioner was not Direct Bribery as
defined in Article 210 of the Revised
Penal Code cited in the Information but
Indirect Bribery as defined under Article
211 of the same code.
POZAR VS CA, 132 SCRA 729
Issue: Whether the accused is guilt of
Article 211.
Facts: The accused, being an applicant
for probation after he was convicted of
an offense gave to the complainant, the
City Probation Officer 100php which
would have held the officer liable for
bribery.
Ruling: No. the procedure for
processing the petitioner’s application
for probation in the Poblacion Office at
Angeles City was not precise, explicit
and clear cut and since the accused
petitioner is a foreigner and quite
unfamiliar with the probation rules and
procedures.
CABRERA VS PAJARES, 142 SCRA
127
Issue: Whether the accused is guilty of
indirect bribery.
Facts: Complainant was the defendant
in a Civil Case which respondent Judge
was trying. According to the
complainant, he was advised by his
counsel to accommodate any request for
money from the respondent so that he
would not be unduly hard on the
complainant.
Ruling. Yes. Evidences show that the
respondent judge is guilty of indirect
bribery.
-----------------------------------------------
 Article 212. Corruption
of public officials
SORIANO VS SANDIGANBAYAN,
131 SCRA 184
Issue: Whether or Not the investigation
conducted by the petitioner can be
regarded as contract or transaction
within the purview of .RA.3019
Facts: Tan was accused of qualified
theft. The petitioner, who was an Asst.
Fiscal, was assigned to investigate. In
the course of the investigation,
petitioner demanded Php.4000 from
Tan as price for dismissing the case.
Ruling: No. The petitioner stated that
the facts make out a case of direct
bribery under Art.210 of the RPC and
not a violation of R.A. 3019 sec.3 (b).
The offense of direct bribery is not the
offense charged and is not included in
the offense charged which is violation of
R.A.3019 sec.3 (b). Petitioner is guilty of
direct bribery under Art.210 of the RPC.
GUERERO: MEJORDA to LISING
case
Mejardo Vs Sandiganbayan
Facts:
Arturo A. Mejorada was a public officer who
is a right-of-way agent in the Office of the
Highway District Engineer. Petitioners
asked for the damages. Mejorada required
the claimants to sign blank copies which
turns out to be fraudulent. The amount paid
is higher than which he indicates on his
official inventory.
Issue: Whether or not the crime is
corruption of public officials.
Held: No. There were two elements
necessary in corruption of public officials.
First, that the offender offers something to
the public officer in exchange of something
and that the public officer be guilty of direct
or indirect bribery. Neither of the two
elements were satisfied in this instant case.
It was Mejardo's will to commit fraud and
no one induced nor offered him something
to commit such.
Luciano vs Estrella
Facts:
Jose Gutierrez and Franco C. Gutierrez,
being the owner, manager and/or
representatives of the JEP Enterprises,
being private persons, did knowingly induce
or cause public officials and officers
including city Mayor Estrella, to enter into a
contract or transaction with the JEP
Enterprises, for the delivery and installation
by the JEP Enterprises to the Municipal
Government of Makati, Rizal of fifty-nine
(59) units of traffic deflectors through a
sham bidding. In exchange, public officials
will get an amount equivalent to 10% of the
total payment.
Issue: Whether or not there is corruption
of public officials.
Held: Yes. The SC held that they knowingly
induced public officials to enter into a
contract favorable to them. The elements
necessary are all satisfied which are:
offender makes promises and that public
officers be liable for direct or indirect
bribery.
Trieste, Sr. vs Sandiganbayan
Facts:
Municipal Mayor and member of the
Committee on Award of the Municipality of
Numancia, Aklan, has administrative
control of the funds of the municipality and
whose approval is required in the
disbursements of municipal funds, have
entered into a contract the purchase of
construction materials from Trigen Agro-
Indusrial Development Corporation in
exchange of a promise that they will be
given additional materials for their personal
usage despite the need of a bidding.
Issue: Whether or not there is corruption
of public officials.
Held:
Yes. It is clear that the private company has
offered promises to the Municipal Mayor
and the member of the committee to give
additional materials for their personal usage
in exchange of the assurance that they will
be purchasing to the said company.
Luciano Vs Provincial Governor
Facts:
Jose Gutierrez and Franco C. Gutierrez,
being the owner, manager and/or
representatives of the JEP Enterprises,
being private persons, did knowingly induce
or cause public officials and officers to enter
into a contract or transaction with the JEP
Enterprises, for the delivery and installation
by the JEP Enterprises to the Municipal
Government of Makati, Rizal of fifty-nine
(59) units of traffic deflectors through a
sham bidding. In exchange, public officials
will get an amount equivalent to 10% of the
total payment.
Issue: Whether or not there is a corruption
of public officials.
Held: Yes. The SC held that they knowingly
induced public officials to enter into a
contract favorable to them. The elements
necessary are all satisfied which are:
offender makes promises and that public
officers be liable for direct or indirect
bribery
People Vs Albano
Facts:
City Mayor and City Vice Mayor of General
Santos City, taking advantage of their
positions as City Mayor and City Vice
Mayor, use the names of 327 employees of
the city government of General Santos City,
fraudulently procure and purchase 1,635
sacks of rice in bulk by using their own
money and after obtaining said 1,635 sacks
of RCA rice at a price very much lower than
the prevailing price in the open market for
the same quality of rice, dispose the same
illegally to persons other than the said 327
employees of the city government. Bernabe
persuades Mayor Antonio C. Acharon to
make a fraudulent official procurement of
rice from the RCA and accused City Mayor
Antonio C. Acharon allowed himself to be so
persuaded in exchange of a great amount
upon the full disposal of rice.
Issue: Whether or not there is corruption
of public official.
Held: Yes. There is corruption of public
official. Bernabe clearly induced and
pesuaded City Mayor Acharon to
fraudulently procure and purchase sacks of
rice in bulk in exchange of a great amount.
The elements of giving a promise or in
exchange of something is satisfied as well as
the element that the public officer is guilty
of direct or indirect bribery.
Deloso Vs Sandiganbayan
Facts:
DELOSO, a public officer being then the
Municipal Mayor of the Municipality of
Botolan, Zambales, taking advantage of his
public and official position, give
unwarranted benefits to Daniel Ferrer thru
manifest partiality and evident bad faith in
the discharge of his official functions by
issuing to him a tractor purchased by the
Municipality of Botolan thru a loan financed
by the Land Bank of the Philippines for
lease to local farmers at reasonable cost,
without any agreement as to the payment of
rentals.
Issue: Whether or not there is corruption
of public officials.
Held:
No. In order to corrupt a public official two
elements must be satisfied. First, that the
offender promises something to a public
officer in exchange of the commission of the
felony and second, that the public officer is
guilty of direct or indirect bribery. In this
instant case neither of the two elements
were satisfied. No one offered something to
Mayor Deloso nor he is guilty of bribery.
LEDESMA: REPUBLIC to
DACUYCUY case
Republic vs. IAC, 172 SCRA 296
Facts:
Petition charged Simplicio Berdon, an
Assistant Staff Civil Engineer assigned
to Regional Office No. VII of the Bureau
of Public Highways in Cebu City, with
having acquired unexplained wealth in
violation of Republic Act No. 1379. It
alleged that during the period from 1963
to 1969 he and his wife Gaudiosa
Mangubat Berdon purchased parcels of
land and constructed a house, the
purchase prices and costs of which were
not commensurate to their incomes,
savings or declared assets.
Issue:
Whether or not the subject properties
were unlawfully acquired.
Ruling:
No. While respondent spouses had
acquired properties and constructed a
house the costs of which were
disproportionate to their combined
incomes from their employment in the
government, it had been proved that
such were financed through a donation
and loans
Almeda, Sr. vs Perez, etc and
Republic, 5 SCRA 970
Facts:
Almeda acquired cash and properties
from unknown source amounting to
P121,407.98 during his incumbency as
Assistant Director of NBI. This violated
RA 1379, otherwise known as Anti-Graft
Law. OSG amended the petition and
added other counts and items of alleged
unlawful acquisitions and
disbursements thus increasing the cash
from unexplained sources to
P208,682.45 from Almeda’s salary and
other lawful income of only 59,860.97.
Almeda contends that the new charges
have already been investigated and
dismissed; also the respondents were
not given a new preliminary
investigation with respect to additional
charges. Under RA 1379, the offense
being criminal in nature, the petition
may not be amended as substance
without respondent’s consent.
Issue: Is the contention meritorious?
Ruling:
The courts find no merit that the new
counts were already dismissed since
there is no resolution of said
investigating fiscals. Further, the courts
find no merit in respondent’s contention
that the amended petition should not be
admitted since this is a civil case and the
rules respecting amendments in civil
cases and not of information in criminal
cases should govern the admission of
amendments in this case.
Cabal vs Kapunan, Jr., 6 SCRA
1059
Facts:
Col. Jose C. Maristela of the Philippine
Army filed with the Secretary of Nation
Defense a letter-complaint charging
petitioner Manuel Cabal, then Chief of
Staff of the Armed Forces of the
Philippines, with "graft, corrupt
practices, unexplained wealth, conduct
unbecoming of an officer and gentleman
dictatorial tendencies, giving false
statements that the investigation being
conducted by the Committee above
referred to is administrative, not
criminal, in nature. The investigative
Committee considered petitioner herein
to take the witness stand and be sworn
to as witness for Maristela, in support of
his aforementioned charge of
unexplained wealth.
Issue:
Whether or not the right against self-
incrimination was violated.
Ruling:
The purpose of the charge against
petitioner is to apply the provisions of
Republic Act No. 1379, as amended,
which authorizes the forfeiture to the
State of property of a public officer or
employee which is manifestly out of
proportion to his salary as such public
officer or employee and his other lawful
income and the income from
legitimately acquired property. Such
forfeiture has been held, however, to
partake of the nature of a penalty.
Katigbak vs Solicitor General, 180
SCRA 540
Facts:
Petition filed against Alejandro
Katigbak, his wife, Mercedes, and his
son, Benedicto, seeking the forfeiture in
favor of the State of the properties of
Alejandro Katigbak allegedly gotten by
him illegally, in accordance with R.A.
No. 1379. Said properties were allegedly
acquired while Katigbak was holding
various positions in the government, the
last being that of an examiner of the
Bureau of Customs; and title to some of
the properties were supposedly recorded
in the names of his wife and/or son.
Issue:
Whether or not the forfeiture of the
properties in favor of the state shall be
granted.
Ruling:
The judgment of the Court a quo, in so
far as it pronounces the acquisitions of
property by the appellants illegal in
accordance with Republic Act No. 1379
and imposes a lien thereon in favor of
the Government in the sum of
P80,000.00 is REVERSED AND SET
ASIDE, but is AFFIRMED in all other
respects.
 Article 213. Frauds
against the public
treasury and similar
offenses.
Ganaden vs Bolasco, 64 SCRA 50
Facts:
Counsel for plaintiff in Civil case 711-0
gave respondent 12.60 pesos for sheriff's
fee for service of the complaint and
summons thereof upon the defendants.
Respondent received said amount before
the summons to be served were
delivered to him for service, in spite of
the standing instructions from the clerk
of court and provincial sheriff not to
accept any payment if no official receipts
are available. Respondent did not issue
the official receipt even after he had
received thereafter the booklet of official
receipt.
Respondent also received, again without
issuing the corresponding official
receipt, 50.00 pesos from plaintiff for
service of a writ of execution issued in
connection with the civil case.
Issue:
Whether or not respondent committed
illegal exaction penalized by paragraph
2(b) of article 213 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Ruling:
YES. The respondent has failed to issue
receipts for money collected by him
officially. His act and/or omission are
patent violation of law. They disturb the
ethics of public life and vitiate the
integrity of the court personnel as well
as the court itself. All elements
necessary in the commission of the
crime were satisfied.

U.S. vs Lopez, et al., 10 Phil 480
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
People vs Policher, 60 Phil 771
Facts:
The appointed treasurer of a municipal
district and as such was in charge and
responsible, among other official duties,
for the issuance of cedula certificates in
said municipal district of Kolambugan,
voluntarily, unlawfully and feloniously,
and with grave abuse of his official
position and with intent to gain and of
prejudicing and defrauding certain
people, falsified cedula certificates, by
erasing the names written thereon of
persons to whom said cedula certificates
had originally been issued so as to
reissue them, in order to appropriate for
himself the proceeds of this reissuance
of the cedula certificates in question.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused has
committed fraud against the public
treasury and similar offenses?
Ruling:
The crime committed by the appellant is
not the complex crime of estafa through
falsification but nine falsifications of
official or public documents, as are the
cedulas, and malversation.
U.S. vs Dacuycuy, 9 Phil 88
Facts:
Justo Dacuycuy, a municipal councillor,
was enjoying a vacation at the barrio of
Oangagan when the 39 individuals,
upon being informed through the
accused that cedulas had been received
at the municipality, delivered to him the
sum of P39, asking him to obtain an
equal number of cedulas. The accused,
however, after receiving the money,
limited himself to taking out 16 cedulas
for as many taxpayers, and appropriated
the balance of P23, and,
notwithstanding the repeated requests
made by the 23 taxpayers who were still
without cedulas, he failed to either
obtain them cedulas or return the
money.
Issue: Whether or not the accused is
guilty of estafa.
Ruling:
Yes the accused is guilty of estafa. All the
elements are of Article 214 are present.
He is a public officer. He takes
advantage of his official position. He
commits any of the frauds or deceits
enumerated in Arts. 315 to 318.
Dacuycuy is guilty of Estafa punishable
under Article 315 of the Revised Penal
Code.
------------------------------------------------
MILITAR: TORRIDA to
PARUNGAO case
 Article 214. Other
Frauds.
US VS. TORRIDA, 23 PHIL 193
Facts:
Apellant, as councilman, directed his
subordinates that the death of all large
animals must be reported by the owners
to him. Appellant informed the owners
that they must pay a fine of P5 for each
animal as these fines are to be remitted
to the municipality. There being no
provision by the municipality as to the
collection of these fines, the act
constitutes estafa.
Issue: WON appellant suffers a penalty
of temporary special disqualification as
imposed in Article 214.
Ruling:
Yes. It was on account of his being
councilman that the parties believed
that he had the right to collect fines and
it was for this reason that they made
payments. The accused took advantage
of his public position to deceive and
defraud the injured parties out of the
money which they paid him. Hence, the
disqualification mentioned in Article 214
is part of the penalty imposed.
-----------------------------------------------
 Article 216. Possession of
prohibited interest by a public
officer
US VS. UDARBE, 28 PHIL 382
Facts:
Defendant was appointed as municipal
president and while under his
presidency, he approved and passed the
leasing of fishponds. When the auction
or bidding for the different sections of
fishponds, the accused participated and
presided over the auction and took part
in the bidding, where he was adjudicated
as the highest bidder. The said
defendant, while still being municipal
president, held the said fishpond even
though the case was on trial.
Issue: WON accused is liable for
possession of prohibited interest.
Ruling:
Yes. A municipal mayor who took direct
part in the lease of municipal fishponds
to himself may be held liable under Art.
216 (1), it being his official duty to
intervene in behalf of the municipality in
the contract of lease of the fishponds.
Actual fraud is not necessary, the act is
punished because of the possibility that
the officer may place his own interest
above that of the government he
represents.
------------------------------------------------
 Article 217. Malversation
of public funds or
property
CABELLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN,
197 SCRA 94
Facts:
Accused was found guilty of the crime of
malversation of public funds penalized
under Article 217. He contends that he
cannot be convicted of intentional
malversation since there is no evidence
showing that he appropriated the funds
for his personal use. He theorizes that an
accused charged with intentional
malversation cannot be convicted
through negligence.
Issue: WON accused is correct with his
contentions.
Ruling:
No. the court found the petitioner’s
contention devoid of merit. According to
Art. 217, malversation may thus be
committed either through a positive act
of misappropriation of public funds or
property or passively through negligence
by allowing another to commit such
misappropriation. An accountable
officer may be convicted of malversation
even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation and the only evidence
is that there is a shortage in the officer’s
accounts which he has not been able to
explain satisfactorily.
MADARANG VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN, 355 SCRA 525
Facts:
Madarang, a barangay captain, was
charged before the Sandiganbayan with
the crime of malversation. Brgy. Captain
Madarang and Mrs. Dora Lim executed
a lease agreement over a portion of
property. Mrs. Lim paid a monthly
rental of P300 for a period of over 20
years. Madarang as public officer, is
accountable for the public funds of
P20,700 that is received by him as
payment for the lease rentals. He
contends that he could not be held guilty
of malversation when all the elements
are not attendant.
Issue: WON Sandiganbayan erred in
convicting him of the crime of
malversation.
Ruling:
Yes, the court finds the petition with
merit. The first 3 elements of
malversation are present, lacking any
evidence of shortage, taking
appropriation or conversion by
petitioner or loss of public funds, there
is no malversation. The peteitioner was
able to present enough evidence that he
did not use the funds for personal use.
No malice or fraud can be imputed to
him. Hence, the court acquitted
Madarang for insufficiency of proof.
AGULLO VS. SANDIGANBAYAN,
361 SCRA 556
Facts:
Petitioner Elvira Agullo, Disbursing
Officer of MPWH in Leyte, was found
guilty of the crime of malversation of
public funds under Art. 217 (4) by
Sandiganbayan. In her defense, she
suffered a stroke which resulted of the
shortage of the amount that had been
subject for audit. She encashed the
checks amounting to P26,076.87. After
which, she decided to go home for she
felt dizziness, chest pain and nausea.
The following morning, she insisted to
go to work despite her condition since it
was payday. On her way to the office,
she collapsed and lost consciousness and
later found herself in a hospital bed. The
Sandiganbayan held her defense as
without bases since no evidence has
been presented linking the loss of the
government funds with the alleged
sudden heart attack of the petitioner.
Issue: WON petitioner s liable for
malversation of public funds.
Ruling:
No. The evidences presented against
petitioner were insufficient to support
conviction. Prosecution opted not to
present a single witness and relied on
the prima facie evidence of conversion
or presumption of malversation. Mere
absence of funds is not sufficient proof
of conversion. Hence, Agullo was
acquitted.
DUMAGAT VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN, 160 SCRA 483
Facts:
Dumagat was assigned in different
stations of NFA. She was under a spot
audit examination in one of her assigned
stations, wherein they have found she
incurred shortage. Despite complying
with the shortage, a complaint was filed
against her. The Sandiganbayan found
her guilty for the offense of malversation
of public funds under Article 217 (4).
Issue: WON she is guilty of
malversation of public funds.
Ruling:
No. Sandiganbayan failed to consider
the fact that the audit examination was
done in one of her assigned stations, and
not in her official station. dumagat had
other vaults in different stations, and
those were not made part of the audit
report. the ruling that the prima facie
presumption under Article 217 does not
apply in this case, hence the petitioner
was acquitted.
DE GUZMAN VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN, 119 SCRA 337
Facts:
Arturo De Guzman, a Travelling
Collector under the Department of
Finance. Audit examiner found
discrepancy after conducting a
preliminary investigation against him.
Upon the demand letter issued against
him, petitioner assured that he had no
more existing accountabilities since he
ceased to make collections due to his
pending promotion. For failure of the
petitioner to account and explain the
shortage, a case was filed and
subsequently convicted him of
malversation of public funds.
Issue: WON petitioner is liable for
malversation of public funds.
Ruling:
Yes. The Supreme Court affirmed the
decision of the Sandiganbayan
convicting petitioner of the crime of
Malversation of Public Funds pursuant
to Art. 217. The court opines that, in
malversation, all that is necessary to
prove is that the defendant received in
his possession public funds, that he
could not account for them and did not
have them in possession and that he
could not give a reasonable excuse for
the disappearance of the same. An
accountable public officer may be
convicted of Malversation even if there
is no direct evidence of
misappropriation and the only evidence
is that there is a shortage in his
accounts, which he has not been able to
explain satisfactorily.
PARUNGAO VS.
SANDIGANBAYAN, 197 SCRA 173
Facts:
Oscar Purangao, municipal treasurer,
was charged with malversation of public
funds for allegedly misappropriating the
fund he received from the MPWH for
the concreting of Barangay Jalung Road
in Porac, Pampanga. In his defense,
petitioner accounted that it was
disbursed for materials and the labor
payrolls of the different barangays in the
municipality. Sandiganbayan rendered
decision acquitting the petitioner of the
crime charged but convicting him of the
crime of illegal use of public funds.
Petitioner filed motion of
reconsideration which was denied,
hence this petition for review.
Issue: WON Sandiganbayan can
convict him, in the same criminal case,
for illegal use of public funds.
Ruling:
No. A comparison of the two articles
reveals that their elements are entirely
distinct and different from each other.
In malversation, the offender
misappropriates public funds for his
own personal use or allows any other
person to take such public funds for the
latter’s personal use. Technical
malversation is not included in nor does
it necessarily include the crime of
malversation of public funds charged in
the information. Since the acts
constituting the crime of technical
malversation were not alleged in the
information, he cannot reluctantly be
convicted of technical malversation.
MANLAPIG: VELASQUEZ to
SENDAYDIEGO case
The United States vs Velasquez
Issue: Whether or not the judgement
requiring the return of the P597 be
stricken from the decision.
Facts: The case is a motion for a
modification of the decision of the court
wherein accused and appellant after
having been convicted of the crime of
misappropriation of public funds, and
was sentenced by this court to indemnify
the province in the sum of P597, which
is the money misappropriated by the
accused.
Held: No. Precisely the same kind of
case has already been decided by this
court. In the case of United States vs
Meneses, the accused misappropriated
P2,713.68 belonging to the Province of
Albay and was sentenced by the court to
8 years imprisonment, payment of fine
and to indemnify the province in the
sum of P2,713.00. According to the SC,
this was a sound decision imposing such
penalty and found no error in the
proceedings to the rights of the accused.
Therefore, the sentence imposed is
hereby affirmed.
US vs Togonon
Issue: Whether or not the alleged
constitutes a violation of Act. No. 1740.
Facts: The accused in this case in the
months of October, November and
December 1907, being at the time the
municipal president of the town of
corella, Province of Cebu, received from
W. Jayne Fosbury, superintendent of
schools, the sum of P60 as rent for a
house owned by the municipality. It was
the duty of Pedro Togonon to take
charge of the amound received and to
deposit the same as required by law, but
he has willfully and unlawfully refused
nad failed to account for it.
Held: Yes. It being charged in the
complaint that the accused, by reason of
his office as municipal president,
received money that belonged to and
was owing the municipality, it is
properly alleged that he received and
kept it in his possession by reason of his
office. The unlawful personal use made
of the money so received comes within
the meaning of, and the penalty imposed
for, the crime of malversation as defined
in section 1 of Act. No. 1740. Therefore,
trial should proceed in accordance with
the law.
Unites States vs Sagun
Issue: Whether or not defendant was
found guilty of misappropriating the
public’s money?
Facts: The accused, being the justice of
peace of the municipality of Camiling
province of Tarlac, presented to the
treasury for the purpose of settlement
his accounts for fees, fines and costs
collected by him for some months of the
year 1908. After the treasurer examined
the accounts, she discovered that the
accused was lacking the sum of P57.50
which thereupon the latter paid
immediately. After the treasurer
reexamined the accounts few days
afterwards, it was discovered that the
accused was still lacking the sum of
P166. The accused immediately paid
over that.
Held: Yes. All public officials who have
in their hands public money owe a duty
to the Government, namely, the duty to
pay over, not a portion, but all of said
money. He stood by and saw the
receiving official make a clerical mistake
in calculating the accounts. This willfully
fails to live up to his know duty and
obligation to the public as he
appropriated such money to his own
use. The fact that he later repaid all this
money, granted him minimum penalty.
Therefore, accused’s judgement is
modified and sentenced to 2 months of
imprisonment and to pay the costs of
this action.
United States vs. Lafuente
Issue: Whether or not the defendant
has committed the crime of
misappropriation of public funds and
Act. No. 1740.
Facts: The municipal council of Loon,
Bohol, enacted an ordinance providing
that fishing privileges should be sold at
public auction. Accordingly, an auction
for the sale of fishing privileges was
conducted with the assistance of the
municipal treasurer, secretary and
councilor. The municipal secretary, the
accused, acted as secretary of the
committee. When the auction was over,
bidders were told to deposit the amount
with the secretary. The complainants did
not receive the licenses for which the
money was paid, nor was their money
returned to them, mor was it placed in
the municipal treasury.
Held: Yes. At the auction, the accused-
defendant was acting in his official
capacity as municipal secretary and as a
member of the committee. The money
was deposited with him under the
authority of law. The bidders should
have received their licenses but instead
the defendant embezzled the money for
his personal use. Clearly, these facts
make up the crime of misappropriation
of public funds. He is to indemnify the
municipality with P53.22, or to suffer
subsidiary imprisonment and to pay the
costs of both instances. The right to
indemnification exists in
misappropriation of public funds cases.
United States vs Radaza
Issue: Whether or not appellant is
guilty of the crime of Act. No. 1740.
Facts: The appellant, Leoncio Radaza
was tried, convicted and sentenced to 1
year imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P5 for the crime of malversation of
public funds. It was said that in the
barrio of La Paz, Leyte, Francisco Tirado
paid to the appellant the sum of P5 for
the privilege of slaughtering a carabao.
The appellant represented himself as in
charge of the collection of these fees but
failed to issue a receipt and converted
the amount to his own use.
Held: No. The real crime committed by
the appellant is that of estafa and not
malversation of public funds. The
appellant was not an officer or employee
at that time, neither took charge of the
P5 by reason of his office as councilor. It
was not in his duty to have the authority
to collect fees. Therefore, judgment is
reversed.
United States vs Solis
Issue: Whether or not the accused is
guilty of malversation.
Facts: Juan Solis was a duly appointed
employee in the office of the municipal
treasurer in Zamboanga, wherein his
duties were to brand cattle and to
register such brands in the proper
registry. While acting as employee, he
received payments from different
persons but retained and appropriated
by him for his own use.
Held: Yes. First, he was a public official,
and second, had received public funds
by reason of his duties as such public
official. The evidence clearly shows that
the accused here while in employment of
as municipal treasurer did receive P215
which belonged to the municipal
treasurer. The lower court found him
guilty.
United States vs Webster
Issue: Whether or not the accused is
guilty of the crime of malversation.
Facts: The accused-defendant in this
case is in charge of Government Forage
in Manila who was directly responsible
to the US Government. Upon requisition
forwarded by the division quartermaster
he issued his orders to the forage
master. The forage master has no
authority to receive money from the
quartermaster’s office. The forage
master delivered the orders without
orders from quartermaster and with
which the Government received no pay.
Held: No. The person is guilty of theft.
An official having only a qualified charge
of property without the right to part with
physical possession of it unless upon
written orders from his immediate
superior, shall be accountable for it to
the Government, and improperly
disposing of it without orders, is guilty
of theft.
People vs Sendaydiego
Issue: Whether or not there is a
complex crime of falsification and
malversation.
Facts: Sendaydiego is a provincial
treasurer. Through 6 falsified vouchers
presented by Samson, a hardware
employee, in the former’s office, 55k was
taken from the provincial budget.
During the pendency of the case,
Sendaydiego died. It was proven that
Samson signed the voucher giving rise to
presumption that he also authored
them.
Held: No. There was no complex crime
of falsification and malversation.
Falsification is not indispensable with
malversation. Each voucher is a separate
act of falsification and each
corresponding amount of money taken
is a separate act of malversation. Thus,
he was sentenced guilty of 12 criminal
cases. Despite being a private individual,
Samson is still liable as a principal to
malversation.
MONDEJAR: AQUINO to
BASCARPA case
People vs Aquino, 94 Phil 805
FACTS: Accused Leon Aquino was
charged with malversation of public
funds for having misappropriated public
funds amounting to P20,944.27
entrusted to his care in his capacity as
municipal treasurer and postmaster of
Mabini, Pangasinan, and ex-officio in-
charge of the properties and funds of the
National Rice and Corn Corporation
(NARIC) and charged with penalty
under Article 217 par. 4.
In his appeal, he contended that,
fact disclosed in the information that
P12,656.83 of the funds malversed
belonged to the NARIC, which is a
private organization. Thus, penalty
under par. 3 of Article 217 must be
followed.
ISSUE: WON his contention is correct.
HELD: NO. The contention is without
merit. Even supposing that funds
belonging to the NARIC are not public
funds, they become impressed with that
character when they are entrusted to a
public officer for his official custody.
People vs Angco, 103 Phil 33
FACTS:Accused, being then Traveling
Sales Agent of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office in Tuguegarao,
Cagayan, embezzle the amount of
P3,960.95 to his own personal use and
benefit, to the damage and prejudice of
the aforesaid Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office.
He insists that as the
malversation was committed while he
was a travelling sales agent in Cagayan,
as charged in the information, and that
as it is not charged that the fund or part
thereof was malversed in Manila, the
Court of First Instance of Manila has no
jurisdiction over the case.
ISSUE: WON his contention is correct.
HELD: NO. Since he is a Travelling
Sales Agent of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office, he has the
obligation of turning over the proceeds
of the sale of said tickets to the
Treasurer of the Philippine Charity
Sweepstakes Office in Manila. The crime
committed is malversation defined and
punished in article 217, No. 2, of the
Revised Penal Code.
People vs Mariño, 55 Phil 537
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
U.S. vs Calimag, 12 Phil 687
FACTS: Accused was municipal
treasurer of the town of Solana, Cagayan
and also deputy provincial treasurer,
receiving as salary for the former
position P25 per month and for the
latter P10 per month. Thereafter, the
district auditor examined the books and
cash of the accused, and informed him
that there was a difference between the
amount for which accused was
responsible and the amount counted by
said district auditor of P49.04. Accused
said that it was for the reason that he
had to advance his salary of P10 a month
from July to November, P50. The
auditor then told him to get the money
and within ten minutes returned with
P50.
ISSUE: WON a fine necessary when
money misappropriated is returned.
HELD: YES. The defendant was
convicted in the court below of a
violation of Act No. 1740 and sentenced
to two months’ imprisonment. It was
proven at the trial that the defendant
had no authority to pay himself his
salary of P10 a month as deputy to the
provincial treasurer, and it must be
considered that he had made personal
use of the funds of the Government.
Supposed that the money
misappropriated is returned, a fine shall
still be incurred by the accused as
provided for in Art. 392 of RPC.
U.S. vs Garces, 31 Phil 637
FACTS: The defendant in this case was
municipal treasurer of the town of
Misamis. An opium pipe and other
prescribed articles were found by the
authorities and delivered to him for
safe-keeping. However, this same opium
pipe was found in the possession of
Primo Valconcha, who was a trusted
employee and clerk in the office of the
defendant. The defendant was
thereupon charged with a violation of
Act No. 1740 and found guilty.
ISSUE: WON accused is guilty of a
violation under Act No. 1740.
HELD: NO. Act No. 1740 is designed to
protect the Government from loss of its
funds and property through the acts of
its agents which are prompted either by
corrupt motives or neglect or disregard
of duty. Conviction must rest upon the
personal use, abstraction, or
misappropriation by another person
through the defendant’s abandonment
of the property or because of his fault or
negligence.
In the case at bar, accused put it
in his own office and this office was kept
locked, only himself and his trusted
employee Medina having keys. Medina
was given a key to the office for an
important purpose but accused does not
contribute to the misconduct. Thus, the
Court held that they cannot reach the
conclusion that he was criminally
negligent in caring for the opium pipe.
People vs Tolentino, 69 Phil 715
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
Javier, et al., vs People, 105 Phil
1294
FACTS: Petitioner was appointed to the
Governing Board of the Book Suppliers
Association of the Philippines (BSAP).
Part of her functions is to attend book
fairs to establish linkages with
international book publishing bodies.
Thereafter, she was issued by the Office
of the President a travel authority to
attend the Madrid International Book
Fair in Spain and she was paid
₱139,199.0010 as her travelling
expenses. Unfortunately, petitioner was
not able to attend the scheduled
international book fair. Petitioner failed
to return the money as prescribed in the
policy. Thus, auditor filed a case of
malversation of public funds.
She averred that she is not a public
officer or employee and that she belongs
to the Governing Board only as a private
sector representative by advancing their
interest as participant in the
government's book development policy.
ISSUE: WON her contention is correct.
HELD: NO. Revised Penal Code defines
a public officer as any person who, by
direct provision of the law, popular
election, popular election or
appointment by competent authority,
shall take part in the performance of
public functions in the Government of
the Philippine Islands, or shall perform
in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee,
agent, or subordinate official, of any
rank or classes, shall be deemed to be a
public officer. Verily, she is a public
officer who takes part in the
performance of public functions in the
government whether as an employee,
agent, subordinate official, of any rank
or classes.
Bacsarpa, et al., vs CA, 99 Phil 112
FACTS:
ISSUE:
HELD:
-----------------------------------------------
SAMONTE: SABERON to LAGATA
case
 Article 218. Failure of
accountable officer to
render accounts
UNITED STATES vs.
MAGDALENO SABERON
19 Phils. 391
Facts:
Magdaleno Saberon, being, as he was, a
public officer, inasmuch as he was the
municipal treasurer of Talisay and
deputy to the provincial treasurer of
Cebu in the said municipality, and
having charge, by reason of his office as
such municipal treasurer of the said
municipality of Talisay, of public funds,
or property, and having been required
by the provincial treasurer of Cebu an
officer authorized by law, to render
account of the funds in his possession as
such municipal treasurer of Talisay and
deputy of the said provincial treasurer,
did, maliciously and with criminal
intent, fail to render an account of the
disposition of the sum of one thousand
two hundred and seventy-five pesos and
sixteen centavos (P1,275.16) which was
missing from the cash which should
have been on hand under his charge.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty
under Article 218 of the Revised Penal
Code?
Ruling: YES.
The reason for this is that Act No. 1740,
in so far as its provisions bearing on this
point are concerned, does not so much
contemplate the possibility of
malversation as the need of enforcing by
a penal provision the performance of the
duty incumbent upon every public
employee who handles government
funds, as well as every depositary or
administrator of another’s property, to
render an account of all he receives or
has in his charge by reason of his them without the order of the court
employment. because on November 12, 1951, the
complaint was sworn to before the
----------------------------------------------- municipal mayor. It was to be presented
 Article 220. Illegal use to the Justice of the Peace, but the latter
of public funds or was absent.
property Issue:
US. VS. EJERCITO Whether or not the accused is liable
6 PHILS. 80 under Article 223 of the Revised Penal
Code
Facts:
Ruling: NO.
Feliciano Ejercito was the duly qualified
acting Municipal Treasurer of the town The original complaint for Illegal
of Irosin, Sorsogon. Upon examination Possession of Firearms in Criminal Case
of his accounts by Provincial Board, He No. 2580 was filed on December 19,
was found to be short of 1,167.07 pesos. 1951 although the six accused were
Included was 253.45 pesos disbursed by arrested without warrant on November
the accused for payments which were 12, 1951 at about 9:30 in the evening.
subsequently disallowed by the The fact therefore is clear that on
Provincial Treasurer on the ground that November 13, 1951 when these six
they were illegal. persons were allegedly released by the
accused, there was no pending charge
Issue: against them.

Whether or not the accused is guilty

under Article 220 of the Revised Penal
Code? US VS. BANDINO

Ruling: YES. 29 PHILS. 459

The accused used the funds (253.45 Facts:

pesos) appropriated for the salaries of The provincial fiscal, on July 30, 1913,
teachers and other municipal employees filed an information wherein he charged
for other public purpose. There is the said Leon Bandino with the
detriment and hindrance to the public aforementioned crime, alleging that the
service. accused, a municipal policeman having
----------------------------------------------- under his care and guard one Juan
Lescano, who was serving a sentence in
 Article 223. Conniving the municipal jail , with great
with or consenting to carelessness and unjustified negligence,
evasion. grant him permission to go and buy
some cigarettes near the place where he
PEOPLE VS. LANCANAN was held in custody; that the prisoner,
95 PHILS. 375 taking advantage of the confusion in the
crowd there, fled from the custody of the
Facts: accused.

The accused, then the the Chief of Police Issue:

entrusted with the custody or charge and
vigilance of persons detained, released
Whether or not the accused is guilty
under Article 223 of the Revised Penal
Code?
Ruling: NO.
In the existence and commission of the
crime of faithlessness in the custody of
prisoners, it is essential that there
should have been, on the part of the
custodian, connivance in the escape of
the prisoner. If the public officer
charged with guarding the fugitive did
not connive with him, then he did not
violate the law and is not guilty of the
crime of faithlessness in the discharge of
his duty to guard the prisoner.
----------------------------------------------
 Article 224. Evasion
through negligence
PEOPLE VS. GUIAB
G.R. NO. 39631, MAY 21, 1934
Facts:
The accused was the policeman assigned
to guard the prisoners when he fell
asleep which resulted to the escape of
the prisoners he was supposed to guard.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused is guilty
under Article 224 of the Revised Penal
Code?
Ruling: YES.
The accused is guilty of the felony under
article 224 of the Revised Penal Code
because his duty is to guard the
prisoners but due to his negligence, by
falling asleep, the prisoners escaped.
PEOPLE VS. LAGATA
83 PHILS. 159
Facts:
The accused, Ignacio Lagata, a
provincial guard of Catbalogan, Samar,
was in charge of 6 prisoners (Jesus,
Tipace, Eusebio, Mariano, Labong &
Abria) assigned to work in the capitol
plaza of Samar.Lagata ordered the
prisoners to go to the nursery to pick up
gabi. Not long afterwards, they were
called to assemble. Epifanio Labong was
missing so Lagata ordered the 5
remaining prisoners to go look for him.
But the said prisoner was nowhere to be
found.
Issue:
Whether or not the accused Lagata is
guilty under Article 224 of the Revised
Penal Code?
Ruling: YES.
Considering that the place was grassy
and tall talahib was growing therein, the
height of which could conceal persons in
standing position, appellant must have
seen immediately that it was a choice
place for any prisoner that may want to
escape. Such negligence of appellant is
punishable, under article 224 of the
Revised Penal Code
SALMAN: REMOCAL to CASTRO
case
Remocal vs People, 71 Phil 429
Facts:
On May 5, 1939, between 12 and 3 p.m.,
one Fernando Tolentino, a prisoner in
the municipal jail of Guimba, Nueva
Ecija, requested the petitioner Pedro
Remocal, the only police officer on duty,
to allow him to go to the toilet for
personal necessity. The request was
granted and petitioner unlocked the jail
and let the prisoner out for the toilet.
Thereafter, when petitioner was about to
lock up back the prisoner, the latter
asked again permission to fetch water
from a nearby well. Petitioner told him
to wait for another policeman, and at
this juncture the telephone rang
repeatedly. Petitioner, instead of locking
up back the prisoner in jail, told the
latter to keep close to him while he
answered the telephone call. The latter,
taking advantage of the situation, ran
away and escaped.
Issue:
Whether or not petitioner may properly
be held guilty of negligence in the
custody of the escaped prisoner.
Ruling:
Yes, the petitioner is found guilty of the
crime of Evasion through negligence.
The court does not agree with the
contention of the petitioner that his
order to the prisoner to keep close to
him while he was answering the
telephone call was sufficient precaution
under the circumstances. The adequate
precaution which should have been
taken by him was to have locked up the
prisoner before answering the telephone
call. There was nothing in that call
necessitating preference to petitioner's
official duty of locking up back the
prisoner in jail postponing the answer to
such call was safest way.
-----------------------------------------------
 Article 226. Removal,
concealment or
destruction of documents.
People vs Camacho, 44 Phil 484
Facts:
On or about the 30th day of June, 1920,
in the town of Bayambang, Province of
Pangasinan, the municipal treasurer of
said municipality sent by means of a
messenger to the herein accused,
Eusebio C. Camacho, as municipal
president, for his examination,
certification and signature, the
municipal pay roll of said municipality
for the payment of the salaries due the
municipal functionaries and employees
for the month of June, 1920, and that
said accused, upon obtaining possession
of said public document, voluntarily,
illegally, and criminally put aside,
concealed and destroyed said document,
which had been entrusted to him by
reason of his office, with the purpose of
not paying or reimbursing a certain sum
for which he was in duty bound to
reimburse the municipal treasury, said
sum consisting in per diems illegally
collected, with grave injustice to the
public interests as well as to the persons
interested in said municipal pay roll, in
violation of article 360 of the Penal Code
Issue:
Whether or not accused is guilty of the
crime of Removal, concealment or
destruction of documents
Ruling:
No. A document is a writing or
instrument by which a fact may be
proven and affirmed. The writing here in
question proves nothing and confirms
nothing; it is not a document but merely
a draft of one. Until approved or
certified to by one or more of the proper
officials, it would not be entitled to filing
in any public office or archive and might
be disapproved or even destroyed by the
official whose approval was necessary to
give it effect, without giving rise to
criminal liability on his part. Counsel for
the defendant argues that there in the
present case was no destruction of the
alleged document in so far as it, with
slight repairs, might have been made
serviceable. Hence, the defendant will
stand acquitted of the offense charged in
the information.
People vs Agnis, 47 Phil 945
Facts:
While the accused was on May 9, 1921,
discharging the function of his office as
postmaster of the town of Dipolog,
Zamboanga, a C.O.D. package arrived at
the post-office from the "Little Leather
Library" of New York, addressed to R.
Vic. Oliva. The accused notified the
sendee several times, but the latter could
not make the required payment in
accordance with the nature of the
correspondence, and asked him to
advance the amount and to retain it
until he could reimburse him. The
accused retained the package without
paying for it, and about July 28th of that
year, he opened the package which
proved to contain printed pamphlets
which he carried to his house to show
them to his sister. At the inspection of
that office on the 30th day of that month
of July, the officer who made the
inspection, Eugenio de Mesa, learned
that there was such correspondence in
that post-office, but that the package
was not in the safe where it should have
been kept. Asked as to the whereabouts
of the package, the defendant brought it
to the office by order of the inspector,
saying that he had carried it to his house
to show to his sister the pamphlets
contained therein. The rules of the post-
office as to correspondence of such a
nature are to the effect that if a C.O.D.
matter is not claimed and paid for by the
sendee within sixty days from receipt, it
must be returned to the sender.
Issue:
Whether or not accused is guilty of the
crime of Removal, concealment or
destruction of documents
Ruling:
No. The accused was not found guilty of
the crime of Removal, concealment or
destruction of documents. The
pamphlets in question cannot be said to
evidence a fact, agreement or
disposition. They are rather
merchandise as any other article usually
sent by C.O.D. mail. In the case of
United States vs. Orera (11 Phil., 596),
defined the terms "documents" or
"papers" employed in said article 360 of
the Penal Code, as: "A deed, instrument
or other duly authorized paper by which
something is proved, evidenced or set
forth," "every deed or instrument
executed by a private person, without
the intervention of a public notary or of
other person legally authorized, by
which document some disposition or
agreement is proved, evidenced or set
forth,".
U.S. vs Gorospe, 31 Phil 285
Facts:
Accused, Jose R. Gorospe, in or about
the month of July, 1914, in the
municipality of Pozorubbio, of the
Province of Pangasinan, he then being
the postmaster of the said municipality,
duly appointed and qualified to act as
such, did willfully, maliciously, and
criminally remove from a letter
addressed by Manuel Venezuela to the
commercial firm called La Fortuna, at
No. 360 Calle Santo Cristo, Binondo,
Manila, and mailed, on the 13th of the
said month of July, 1914, in the post of
the aforementioned municipality of
Pozorrubio, which was in charge of the
accused, Jose R. Gorospe, postal money
order No. 1570, inclosed in said letter,
drawn for one hundred and fifty pesos
(P150) and issued by the said accused,
Jose R. Gorospe, in favor of the
commercial firm La Fortuna on the date
aforesaid of July 13, 1914, after he had
received from the said Manuel
Venezuela the aforementioned sum of
one hundred and fifty (P150) for its
remittal to the said commercial firm La
Fortuna; and that the accused
afterwards did appropriate to himself
the said sum of one hundred hundred
and fifty pesos (P150) and did, for this
purpose, sign at the foot of the said
postal money order the Christian name
and the surname of Manuel Venezuela;
which acts have caused serious damage
and harm to the said Manuel Venezuela
and to the public weal and constitute the
said crime of faithfulness in the custody
of documents
Issue:
Whether or not accused is guilty of the
crime of Removal, concealment or
destruction of documents
Ruling:
The foregoing facts clearly show that the
defendant, as postmaster of the
municipality of Pozorrubio, is guilty of
the crime charged in the complaint, to
wit, faithlessness in the custody of
documents, and should be punished in
accordance with the provisions of article
226 in relation to 360 of the Penal Code.
U.S. vs Peña, 12 Phil 362
Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:
Kataniag vs People, 74 Phil 45
Facts:
The accused was caught carrying with
him were intact, but as he had already
succeeded in removing or secreting away
the documents in question from his
office, for he was caught carrying them
after he had locked the door of his office
and was already out walking through the
lobby towards the main door of the
building, the crime of removal of public
documents summated, it being
immaterial whether he has or has not
actually accomplished moved said
documents.
Issue:
Whether or not accused is guilty of the
crime of Removal, concealment or
destruction of documents
Ruling:
Yes. The accused has committed
consummated crime of infidelity in the
custody of public documents. To warrant
a finding of guilt of infidelity in the
custody of public documents, it is not
necessary that the act of removal must
be coupled with proof of intention to
conceal. The law punishes "any public
officer who shall remove, destroy or
conceal documents or papers officially
entrusted to him. Whether during or
after office hours, if the removal by a
public officer of any official document
from its usual place of safe-keeping is
for an illicit purpose, such as to tamper
with or to otherwise profit by it, or to do
in connection therewith an act which
would constitute a breach of trust in his
official care thereof, the crime of
infidelity in the custody of public
documents is committed
Manzanaris vs People, 127 SCRA
201
Facts:
Accused is the Clerk of Court of the
Court of First Instance of Basilan since
1963 up to the present. As such, he is the
custodian of all the records of the Court
of First Instance of Basilan. Among the
cases filed in said court was Criminal
Case No. 299, against Geronimo Borja
for malversation of public funds. Among
the property constituting the property
bond filed by said accused was that
covered by Certificate of Title No. 877 of
the Register of Deeds of Basilan. When
accused discovered thru his subordinate
that Original Certificate of Title No. 877
was not existing in the Register of Deeds
of Basilan, he ordered a subordinate to
deliver owner’s copy of Certificate of
Title No. 877 to Mr. Borja for the
purpose of administrative reconstitution
thereof.
Issue:
Whether or not accused is guilty of the
crime of Removal, concealment or
destruction of documents
Ruling:
No. It is quite clear that in removing the
certificate of title in question from the
court’s files and delivering the same to
Borja for the purpose of effecting its
administrative reconstitution, petitioner
was not prompted by criminal intent or
illegal purpose. Rather, he was
motivated with a sincere desire to
protect the interest of the Government.
The prosecution did not even attempt to
impute had faith on the part of
petitioner; and there is nothing in the
record to insinuate that petitioner had
profited from the act complained of.
Citing the case of Kataniag v. People,
“Whether during or after office hours, if
the removal by a public officer of any
official document from its usual place of
safe-keeping is for an illicit purpose,
such as to tamper with or to otherwise
profit by it, or to do in connection
therewith an act which would constitute
a breach of trust in his official care
thereof, the crime of infidelity in the
custody of public documents is
committed. On the other hand, where
the act of removal is actuated with
lawful or commendable motives, as
when the public officer removes the
public documents committed to his trust acting in the CRIMINAL LAW II DAILY
for examination in connection with CASE DIGEST
official duty, or with a view to securing
them from imminent danger of loss, ISSUE:
there would be no crime committed Whether or not defendant Francisco
under the law. This is so, because the act Hilvano, can be charged of usurpation of
of removal, destruction or concealment executive functions.
of public documents is punished by law
only when any of such acts would HELD:
constitute infidelity in the custody Article 240 of the Revised Penal Code to
thereof." Hence, Tested by this rule, read as follows: “Usurpation of executive
petitioner cannot be punished functions. — Any judge who shall
criminally. assume any power pertaining to the
executive authorities, or shall obstruct
the latter in the lawful exercise of their
People vs Castro, G.R.No. 19273, powers, shall suffer the penalty of
March 16, 1923 arresto mayor in its medium period to
Facts: prision correccional in its minimum
period.”
Issue:
Thus, a councilor who assumes a power
Ruling: pertaining to the mayor or obstructs him
in the lawful exercise of his power is not
liable under Article 240, because only a
SORIANO: PUNZALAN to judge can commit usurpation of
MORELOS case executive functions. The councilor is
liable under Article 177 of the Code, if he
assumes the power of the mayor.
Punzalan v. People ------------------------------------------------
FACTS:  Article 241. Usurpation
ISSUE: of judicial functions

HELD: People v. Valdehuesa

Facts:
Issue:
Ruling:

 Article 240. Usurpation

of executive functions Angara v. Electoral Commission
PEOPLE VS HILVANO GR NO. L- FACTS
8583, JUL 31, 1956 PONENTE:
JUSTICE BENGZON Petitioner Jose Angara was proclaimed
winner and took his oath of office as
FACTS: member of the National Assembly of the
On September 22, 1952, When Mayor Commonwealth Government. On
Fidencio Latorre of Villareal, Samar, December 3, 1935, the National
departed for Manila on official business, Assembly passed a resolution
designated the herein defendant confirming the election of those who
Francisco Hilvano, councilor, to have not been subject of an election
discharge the duties of his office. Later, protest prior to the adoption of the said
Vice-Mayor Juan Latorre found Hilvano resolution.
On December 8, 1935, however, private
respondent Pedro Ynsua filed an
election protest against the petitioner
before the Electoral Commission of the
National Assembly. The following
day, December 9, 1935, the Electoral
Commission adopted its own resolution
providing that it will not consider any
election protest that was not submitted
on or before December 9, 1935.
Citing among others the earlier
resolution of the National Assembly, the
petitioner sought the dismissal of
respondent’s protest. The Electoral
Commission however denied his motion.
ISSUE
Did the Electoral Commission act
without or in excess of its jurisdiction in
taking cognizance of the protest filed
against the election of the petitioner
notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of such election by
resolution of the National Assembly?
RULING
NO, the Electoral Commission did not
act without or in excess of its
jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the
protest filed against the election of the
petitioner notwithstanding the previous
confirmation of such election by
resolution of the National Assembly.
-----------------------------------------------
 Article 243. Orders or
requests by executive
officers to any judicial
authority
BORRROMEO V. MARIANO G.R.
NO. 16808 JANUARY 3, 1921
FACTS:
Andres Borromeo was appointed as
judge of the 24th Judicial District (JD)
on July 1, 1914. Said appointment was
accepted by Borromeo on the same date.
On February 25, 1920, he was
transferred to the 21st JD without his
consent. Under the Administrative Code,
Judges of First Instance are appointed
by the Governor-General with the
consent of the Philippine Senate to serve
until they reach the age of 65 years.
ISSUE:
WON the transfer of Judge Borromeo by
the Governor-General was valid.
HELD:
No, it was not. Under the Administrative
Code, ”a Judge of First Instance can be
removed from office by the Governor-
General only if in the judgment of the
Supreme Court sufficient cause shall
exist involving serious misconduct or
inefficiency in office..”
Relatedly, Art. 243 of the Revised Penal
Code states that “Orders or request by
executive officers to any judicial
authority. – Any executive officer who
shall address any order or suggestion to
any judicial authority with respect to any
case or business coming within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
justice shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos.”
It was noted that although the
appointment of a judge lies with the
Executive Department (by the Governor-
General with the consent of the Senate),
the power to remove, transfer or
discipline the judges lies with the
Judiciary. The power of the Executive
ceases upon the consent of the judge to
the position, to allow such action by the
Executive could be used to discipline the
judge or as an indirect means of removal
thus would violate the separation of
powers between a coordinate and equal
branch of the government.
Ferrer v. Hon. De Leon
Facts:
Issues:
Held:
 Article 245. Abuses
against chastity.
US v. EULALIO MORELOS
Issue:
Whether or not proof of solicitation is
necessary when the illicit relations were
consummated.
FACTS:
The appellant, as acting warden, was in
charge of the prisoners in the Tondo
police station. Among them was a
woman named Tomasa Clemente. On
the night of 18th of September 1913, he
entered the cell of the woman and had
illicit relations with her.
The appellant argues that the proof fails
to show that he solicited a woman in his
custody. It was proven, however, that his
illicit relations were consummated.
HELD:
No. It would be a strange interpretation
to place upon said law, that a failure in
the proof to show a "solicitation" was
sufficient to relieve the defendant from
responsibility, when the act solicited was
consummated.